Stacy Haynes v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20237
7th Cir.2017Background
- Stacy Haynes was convicted in 1998 on multiple federal counts (including Hobbs Act robbery, interstate travel in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. §1952(a)(2), and three §924(c) firearms counts) and sentenced to life plus 105 years; direct and initial §2255 relief failed.
- After Johnson v. United States and Welch made Johnson retroactive, Haynes obtained authorization to file a successive §2255 challenging mandatory life sentences under 18 U.S.C. §3559(c)(2)(F)(ii) (a residual clause).
- The district court concluded Johnson (as applied in this circuit in Vivas-Ceja and Cardena) renders the §3559(c) residual clause void, vacated the life sentences and ordered resentencing on the §1951 and §1952 counts, but left the underlying convictions intact.
- Haynes also argued that his §924(c) convictions (which require a predicate “crime of violence”) depended on treating §1952(a)(2) as a crime of violence; the district court treated the §1952 conduct as analogous to Hobbs Act robbery and thus within the §924(c) elements clause.
- The government and Haynes both appealed aspects of the district court’s rulings; Haynes appealed immediately from the district court’s decision vacating life sentences and leaving other convictions intact.
- The Seventh Circuit held the appeal premature because, under Andrews v. United States and multiple circuits’ precedents, a §2255 proceeding that orders resentencing is not final (and thus not appealable) until the resentencing occurs; it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §3559(c)(2)(F)(ii) residual clause is invalid under Johnson | Haynes: Johnson’s vagueness holding invalidates the §3559(c) residual clause, undermining life sentences | Gov: (implicit) prior collateral rulings and statutes support sentencing outcome; but district court treated precedent as controlling | District court found §3559(c) residual clause invalid; Seventh Circuit did not reach merits on appeal because appeal was premature |
| Whether §1952(a)(2) (interstate travel to commit racketeering) qualifies as a "crime of violence" under §924(c)(3)(A) elements clause | Haynes: §1952(a)(2) does not have as an element the use/threatened use of physical force, so it is not a crime of violence under the elements clause | Gov / District court: Haynes’s §1952 conduct was part of robberies and analogous to Hobbs Act robbery, fitting the elements clause | District court treated §1952 as fitting the elements clause; Seventh Circuit did not resolve the legal issue on appeal (appeal dismissed as premature) |
| Whether a §2255 order that vacates sentences but leaves convictions intact is immediately appealable | Haynes: appealed immediately to preserve appellate rights and challenge parts of district court’s rulings | Gov: argued finality might be controlled by resentencing timing; both sides acknowledged potential jurisdictional problem | Seventh Circuit held appeal is premature: §2255 proceeding is not final until any ordered resentencing occurs |
| What is the proper finality rule for multi-count §2255 proceedings that order resentencing on some counts | Haynes: sought immediate appeal on specific counts | Gov: urged resolution consistent with Andrews or other precedents | Seventh Circuit aligned with Andrews and several circuits: when §2255 orders resentencing on any count, the §2255 proceeding is not final until the resentencing is completed; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (U.S. 2016) (holding Johnson retroactive on collateral review)
- Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334 (1963) (holding §2255 proceedings are not final — and not appealable — until resentencing ordered in the §2255 proceeding occurs)
- United States v. Vivas-Ceja, 808 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2015) (applying Johnson to strike down a similar residual clause)
- United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016) (applying Johnson to invalidate another residual clause)
- United States v. Anglin, 846 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2017) (treating Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence under the §924(c) elements clause)
- United States v. Hammer, 564 F.3d 628 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding multicount §2255 decisions requiring resentencing are not appealable until resentencing)
- United States v. Hayes, 532 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2008) (same)
- United States v. Futch, 518 F.3d 887 (11th Cir. 2008) (same)
- United States v. Stitt, 459 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (same)
- United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2000) (same)