Miller v. United States
3:16-cv-01838
N.D. Tex.Sep 13, 2017Background
- Movant Anthony Miller pleaded guilty to: possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)); two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); and possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)).
- District court sentenced Miller to 168 months on April 21, 2015; Miller did not file a direct appeal.
- Miller filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (filed June 24, 2016) arguing his § 924(c) conviction/sentence was invalid under the reasoning of Johnson v. United States and that he received a 60‑month enhancement based on an improper predicate.
- The Government moved to dismiss the § 2255 motion as time‑barred; Miller did not respond to the show‑cause order.
- The magistrate judge found Miller’s conviction became final on May 6, 2015 (appeal period expired), so the AEDPA one‑year limitations period expired May 6, 2016; Miller’s June 24, 2016 filing was untimely.
- The court also held Johnson did not announce a right applicable to Miller’s § 924(c) conviction because § 924(c)(2)’s definition of "drug trafficking crime" lacks the residual clause invalidated in Johnson, and Miller failed to show rare or exceptional circumstances to warrant equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA § 2255(f)(1) | Miller's § 2255 motion is timely enough to challenge his § 924(c) conviction | Motion is untimely because conviction became final 5/6/2015; one‑year limitations expired 5/6/2016; Miller filed 6/24/2016 | Motion dismissed as time‑barred (untimely) |
| Application of Johnson via § 2255(f)(3) | Johnson invalidates predicate basis for his § 924(c) conviction; triggers new‑right tolling | Johnson addressed ACCA residual clause, not § 924(c); no newly recognized right applicable to Miller | § 2255(f)(3) inapplicable; Johnson does not undermine § 924(c)(2) predicates |
| Whether § 924(c) contains an invalid residual clause | Miller contends his enhancement rested on an invalid predicate clause analogous to ACCA | § 924(c)(2) enumerates specific drug offenses and contains no residual clause like ACCA’s | Court rejects extension of Johnson to § 924(c); no residual‑clause problem |
| Equitable tolling of AEDPA limitations | Miller implies equitable relief is warranted to allow review | Government: no showing of rare/extraordinary circumstances or active misleading; burden on Miller to prove tolling | Equitable tolling denied; Miller failed to meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson is substantive and retroactive on collateral review)
- United States v. Plascencia, 537 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2008) (conviction final when time to file direct appeal expires if no appeal taken)
- United States v. Chapman, 851 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2017) (held drug‑trafficking offenses qualify as § 924(c) predicates without resort to a risk‑of‑force residual clause)
- Davis v. Johnson, 158 F.3d 806 (5th Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling applies only in rare and exceptional cases)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 1999) (equitable tolling principally applies where plaintiff is actively misled or prevented in an extraordinary way from asserting rights)
- Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2000) (movant bears burden to show entitlement to equitable tolling)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (requirements for objections to magistrate judge recommendations and appeal consequences)