Moore v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17709
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Darnell Moore pleaded guilty to two counts of unarmed bank robbery in 2002 and was sentenced pre-Booker under the Sentencing Guidelines; the district court applied the career-offender guideline, producing a Guidelines range of 210–262 months and a sentence of 216 months.
- Moore had multiple prior Massachusetts convictions (assault and battery variants, breaking and entering, assault with a dangerous weapon) that the sentencing court treated as "crimes of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, including its residual clause identical in language to the ACCA residual clause.
- Moore filed a first § 2255 motion in 2005 (raising Booker retroactivity among other claims) which was denied; he later sought to file a successive § 2255 motion after Johnson v. United States and Welch.
- Johnson (2015) held the ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague; Welch (2016) held Johnson’s rule substantive and retroactive on collateral review. Beckles (2017) later held that the identical residual clause in the post-Booker advisory Guidelines is not subject to vagueness challenge because advisory Guidelines do not "fix" sentences.
- Moore asked this Court for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion arguing that Johnson/Welch invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker (mandatory) career-offender guideline; the First Circuit granted certification to let the district court decide the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson announced a new, retroactive rule applicable here | Johnson announced a new rule (residual clause void for vagueness) and Welch made it retroactive; Moore seeks to apply it to identical language in the pre-Booker guideline | Johnson/Welch apply to ACCA only; Beckles bars extending Johnson to Guidelines; applying Johnson to pre-Booker Guidelines would require a new rule | Court: Johnson/Welch present a retroactive rule plausibly applicable to the pre-Booker guideline; authorization to file successive § 2255 granted |
| Whether the pre-Booker SRA/Guidelines “fixed” sentences (so Johnson applies) | Pre-Booker Guidelines were mandatory and thus fixed sentencing ranges in a relevant sense (Booker recognized Guidelines as binding pre-remedy) | Government contends determining "fixing" would create new constitutional rule and Beckles limits Johnson’s reach to ACCA only | Court: It is likely statutory interpretation of SRA/Booker, not new constitutional law; left to district court to decide whether pre-Booker Guidelines fixed Moore’s sentence |
| Whether certification may be denied on procedural-default or timeliness grounds | Moore filed within one year of Johnson and after Welch; seeks authorization now | Govt. urges denial for timeliness/default and that §2255(h)(2) requires Supreme Court recognition of any new rule beyond Johnson | Court: Declined to resolve procedural-default/timeliness at cert stage; denied procedural-default as basis to refuse certification and left timeliness/merits to district court |
| Scope of Beckles (post-Booker advisory) on pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines | Moore: Beckles does not foreclose applying Johnson to mandatory pre-Booker Guidelines; Beckles turned on advisory nature | Govt.: Beckles signals Johnson limited; identical wording should not automatically control other contexts | Held: Beckles does not categorically foreclose Johnson’s application to pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines; district court must assess whether Guideline fixed sentences for Moore |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson’s rule is substantive and retroactive on collateral review)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (pre-Booker Guidelines were binding; remedial opinion made Guidelines advisory)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (post-Booker advisory Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge)
- Evans-García v. United States, 744 F.3d 235 (1st Cir. 2014) (standards for certifying successive §2255 motions)