Raphael Donnell v. United States
826 F.3d 1014
8th Cir.2016Background
- Raphael Donnell was sentenced in 2008 after the district court applied the career‑offender guideline USSG § 4B1.1 to calculate his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.
- Donnell seeks authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion challenging his sentence.
- He argues, invoking Johnson v. United States, that the residual clause in USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague and thus his enhanced sentence violates due process.
- Johnson announced a new rule declaring the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) void for vagueness; Welch made Johnson retroactive on collateral review.
- The Eighth Circuit recognizes that whether advisory sentencing guidelines are vulnerable to vagueness challenges is an open, debatable question (citing United States v. Ellis).
- The court must decide whether Donnell’s successive motion “contains” a new, retroactive constitutional rule under § 2255(h)(2) — i.e., whether Johnson (and Welch) themselves recognize the right Donnell asserts or whether a second new rule would be required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2255(h)(2) authorization exists for Donnell to file a successive § 2255 asserting vagueness of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) | Donnell: Johnson’s vagueness rule should extend to the Guidelines’ residual clause, and Welch makes that rule retroactive, so his successive motion “contains” a new, retroactive rule | Government: Johnson and Welch addressed a statute (§ 924(e)); extending that rule to advisory Guidelines would create a second new rule not recognized by the Supreme Court | Denied — Donnell’s motion is not certified under § 2255(h)(2) because it would rely on a second new rule (extension of Johnson to the Guidelines) not recognized and made retroactive by the Supreme Court |
| Meaning of “to contain” a new rule in § 2255(h)(2) | Donnell: Citation of Johnson/Welch suffices to show the motion contains a new, retroactive rule | Court/Government: “To contain” requires the motion to include a new rule that recognizes the very right asserted; mere citation is insufficient | Held that “to contain” requires a nexus: the new rule must recognize the asserted right; mere predicate usage is not enough |
| Relationship between § 2255(h)(2) and § 2255(f)(3) statute of limitations | Donnell: (implicit) broader reading permitting successive claims tied to new Supreme Court rules | Court: § 2255(h)(2) must be read in pari materia with § 2255(f)(3) so that the new rule in a successive motion recognizes the asserted right (to avoid creating routine limitations exceptions) | Court construes § 2255(h)(2) narrowly to require the new rule to recognize the claimed right |
| Whether a claim may rely on one new rule to predicate adoption of a second new rule | Donnell: His motion relies on Johnson as a basis to argue the Guidelines clause is unconstitutional | Court: A successive motion cannot rely on one new rule merely as a predicate to obtain recognition of a separate new right; the rule must itself justify relief | Held: A claim that depends on a second new rule is not authorized under § 2255(h)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (made Johnson retroactive on collateral review)
- United States v. Ellis, 815 F.3d 419 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting vagueness challenge to advisory Guidelines is an open question)
- Kamil Johnson v. United States, 720 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing prima facie standard for successive § 2255 authorization)
- Bennett v. United States, 119 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 1997) (prima facie standard explanation cited)
- Woods v. United States, 805 F.3d 1152 (8th Cir. 2015) (applying standard that a claim must be based on a new rule)
- Williams v. United States, 705 F.3d 293 (8th Cir. 2013) (same)
- Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) (explaining when a claim is "based on" a new rule)