Smith v. United States, 2:16-cv-08111

Petitioner Valecio Jamell Smith pleaded guilty to carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119) and to using/brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)); sentence totaled 147 months; judgment entered May 8, 2013.
Smith did not file a direct appeal.
Over three years after his conviction became final, Smith filed a § 2255 motion arguing Johnson v. United States invalidated § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual-clause definition of “crime of violence,” so his § 924(c) conviction must be vacated.
The Government opposed; the court considered Eleventh Circuit precedent addressing whether Johnson applies to § 924(c) and whether carjacking qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A).
The court relied on In re Smith, which explained Johnson invalidated only the ACCA residual clause and did not automatically invalidate § 924(c)’s residual clause; and on United States v. Moore, holding carjacking satisfies § 924(c)’s force clause.
The court denied § 2255 relief and declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding Smith did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson invalidates § 924(c)’s residual clause and thus Smith’s § 924(c) conviction	Johnson’s holding on ACCA residual clause applies to § 924(c)(3)(B), rendering it unconstitutionally vague	Johnson addressed ACCA only; § 924(c) uses different language and has not shown the same vagueness problems; Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses application	Denied — Johnson does not automatically invalidate § 924(c)’s residual clause and Eleventh Circuit precedent controls
Whether federal carjacking (§ 2119) qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) (force/element clause)	If § 924(c)’s residual clause is invalid, underlying convictions might not qualify; Smith argues his predicate no longer suffices	Carjacking’s elements (take by force/violence or intimidation) satisfy § 924(c)(3)(A)’s force clause per Eleventh Circuit law	Held that carjacking satisfies § 924(c)(3)(A); thus Smith’s § 924(c) conviction remains valid
Timeliness under § 2255(f)(3) to invoke Johnson	Smith filed within one year of Johnson decision (petition mailed within statute)	Government opposed on merits rather than timeliness; court considered claim timely under § 2255(f)(3)	Timeliness not dispositive; claim rejected on merits
Certificate of appealability (COA)	Implicit request for COA with § 2255 motion	No substantial showing of denial of constitutional right; issues not debatable among reasonable jurists	COA denied

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review)
In re Smith, 829 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2016) (explained Johnson does not automatically invalidate § 924(c)’s residual clause and held carjacking qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A))
United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568 (11th Cir. 1994) (held federal carjacking falls within § 924(c)(3)(A)’s force clause)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for certificate of appealability)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (further guidance on COA standard)