Shea v. United States, 976 F.3d 63

In the 1990s Anthony Shea committed armed attempted bank robbery and related offenses; he was convicted in federal court and sentenced under the then-mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as a Career Offender, receiving a dramatically increased Guideline range (plus a consecutive § 924(c) term).
The Career Offender designation relied in part on § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s "residual clause," which defined a "crime of violence" by reference to an abstract, ordinary-case risk standard.
After Johnson v. United States struck the ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness and Welch made that rule retroactive, Shea filed a § 2255 motion arguing Johnson also voided the pre-Booker Guidelines’ residual clause and therefore his Career Offender enhancement (and separately challenging his § 924(c) conviction).
The district court dismissed Shea’s § 2255 petition as untimely, holding § 2255(f)(3) did not reopen the one-year window because reasonable jurists could debate whether Johnson compelled relief beyond ACCA.
On appeal the First Circuit held that Johnson does reopen § 2255(f)(3) for Johnson-based attacks on the pre-Booker Guidelines’ residual clause when the mandatory Guideline in fact "fixed" the defendant’s sentence (i.e., no departure was available), so Shea’s challenge is timely; the court remanded the § 924(c) issue and the Guidelines-merits issues to the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2255(f)(3) reopened the one-year limitations window for Johnson-based challenges to the pre-Booker Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause	Shea: Johnson announced a vagueness rule that applies to any law (including pre-Booker Guidelines) that "fixes" sentences; his petition (filed within one year of Johnson) is timely because the Career Offender clause fixed his range and relied on the residual clause	Government: Johnson only recognized a right as to the ACCA; applying it to pre-Booker Guidelines would require creating a new rule beyond Johnson, so § 2255(f)(3) does not restart the clock	Court: Timely. Johnson dictates relief where the mandatory Guideline actually fixed the permissible sentencing range (no downward departure available); Shea’s Johnson-based Guidelines claim is within § 2255(f)(3)’s one-year window and must be remanded for merits review
Whether Shea’s § 924(c) conviction (armed attempted bank robbery) is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)’s force clause	Shea: § 2113(a)/(d) as applied may not qualify under the force clause; Davis (striking § 924(c)’s residual clause) makes his § 924(c) challenge timely	Government: Concedes timeliness in light of Davis and asks remand for district court to resolve whether the offense qualifies under the force clause	Court: Parties agree timeliness; court remands the § 924(c) issue to the district court to decide on the merits

Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson’s rule is retroactive on collateral review)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (pre-Booker Guidelines were mandatory and had the force and effect of law)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness attacks because they do not "fix" permissible sentences)
Davis v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (§ 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase the legally prescribed range of penalties are elements of an offense)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (limits retroactive application of new rules on collateral review)
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (defines when a case announces a "new rule")
Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 (1992) (application of an existing constitutional principle to a different scheme does not necessarily announce a new rule)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (pre-Booker Guidelines treated as authoritative rules)
Moore v. United States, 871 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2017) (First Circuit previously held a Johnson-based pre-Booker Guidelines challenge could be timely; discussed interplay of Johnson and Booker)