Marco D. Duncan v. United States, 704 F. App'x 914

Marco Duncan was convicted in federal court of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and sentenced to life imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
His federal sentence relied on a prior California felony conviction for possession of cocaine base, which increased his statutory minimum from 10 to 20 years.
Duncan previously filed a § 2255 motion attacking his sentence and received no relief.
Afterward, California reclassified the prior state conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Duncan filed a numerically second § 2255 motion seeking to vacate or correct his federal sentence based on that reclassification.
The district court dismissed the motion as second or successive (or otherwise without relief); Duncan appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Duncan's § 2255 motion is "second or successive" given the state conviction was reclassified	Reclassification is a new fact so the motion is not second or successive under Stewart	Without this court's authorization, a numerically second § 2255 motion is successive and the district court lacks jurisdiction	Motion treated as successive jurisdictionally controlled by precedent; court affirms (no relief)
Whether reclassification entitled Duncan to § 2255 relief on the merits (fundamental defect / actual innocence / vacatur)	Reclassification negates the predicate felony enhancement and thus his sentence is unlawful	Even after reclassification, the federal sentence (including life maximum) remained lawful; Duncan has not shown actual innocence or that the prior conviction was vacated	Court holds sentence remained lawful; Duncan did not show actual innocence or vacatur, so relief denied

Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005) (held concerning categorization of prior offenses for sentence enhancement)
McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2002) (standards for de novo review of § 2255 dismissal as successive)
United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2005) (district court lacks jurisdiction to hear unauthorized successive § 2255 motions)
Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856 (11th Cir. 2011) (a subsequent vacatur of a predicate conviction can make a later § 2255 motion non-successive when based on a new factual predicate)
United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (§ 2255 relief requires a fundamental defect resulting in a miscarriage of justice)
Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2014) (to obtain collateral relief a prisoner must show actual innocence or vacatur of the prior conviction)