Montavis Middleton v. United States
693 F. App'x 846
11th Cir.2017Background
- Middleton pleaded guilty to 10 counts: conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, seven Hobbs Act robberies, and two § 924(c) firearms counts, and was sentenced to 321 months.
- He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging (1) that Hobbs Act robbery no longer qualifies as a "crime of violence" after Johnson v. United States, thereby invalidating his two § 924(c) convictions, and (2) that he no longer qualifies as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
- The district court denied relief; Middleton appealed.
- A certificate of appealability (COA) had been granted only on whether the residual clause in the Sentencing Guidelines is void for vagueness.
- Middleton sought to raise the § 924(c) innocence argument on appeal, but the court declined to expand the COA because the case was not exceptional.
- On the career-offender vagueness claim, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and held Beckles controls, foreclosing a due-process vagueness challenge to the advisory Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Middleton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Guidelines' residual clause in § 4B1.2(a) is void for vagueness | Residual clause is void after Johnson; thus career-offender classification invalid | Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge to advisory Guidelines | Court held Beckles controls; residual clause not void; denial affirmed |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is no longer a "crime of violence" for § 924(c) predicates | Hobbs Act robbery no longer qualifies after Johnson, so § 924(c) convictions invalid | COA did not include this issue; appellate court should not reach it | Issue outside COA scope; court declined to address merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under Due Process)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728 (11th Cir. 2016) (permitted limited sua sponte expansion of COA on exceptional occasions)
- Spencer v. United States, 773 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2014) (COA requires substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right)
- Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)