Taylor v. United States, 5:16-cv-00428

Background

John R. Taylor was sentenced in 1998 to concurrent 360-month terms after jury convictions for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base; sentence was enhanced under the career-offender Guidelines (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1) based on prior felony convictions including a California robbery.
Taylor previously litigated direct appeal and multiple post-conviction challenges; the Tenth Circuit authorized a second/successive § 2255 motion to raise a Johnson-based claim in 2016.
Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague; Welch held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review for ACCA claims.
Taylor contends the career-offender Guideline’s residual clause (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2) is likewise invalid under Johnson, so his California robbery predicate no longer qualifies as a “crime of violence.”
After Beckles held the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges, the court considered whether Johnson and Welch supply a new, retroactive constitutional rule that supports relief for a mandatory‑Guidelines-era career‑offender claim.
The district court concluded Taylor failed to show his claim rests on a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court and dismissed the § 2255 motion; a certificate of appealability was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taylor’s career‑offender challenge is based on a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court	Court (government) argued Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge to advisory Guidelines and Welch’s retroactivity is limited to ACCA	Taylor argued Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause extends to the Guidelines’ residual clause, rendering his robbery non‑predicate	Dismissed: Taylor failed to show a Supreme Court‑made, retroactive new rule applies to his career‑offender Guideline claim
Whether § 2255(h)(2) preconditions for a second/successive motion are met	Government contended the Supreme Court has not made a new rule retroactive for career‑offender Guideline claims	Taylor relied on Tenth Circuit precedent that previously equated the Guidelines residual clause with ACCA residual clause	Court found § 2255(h)(2) unmet because only Welch (limited to ACCA) could suffice and it does not encompass Guideline residual clause claims
Effect of Beckles on mandatory‑Guidelines-era challenges	Government argued Beckles eliminated vagueness challenges to advisory Guidelines and leaves unresolved whether Johnson applies to mandatory Guidelines	Taylor argued Beckles was limited to advisory Guidelines and cannot defeat his claim about mandatory Guidelines	Court held Beckles undermines premise that Johnson automatically provides relief; retroactivity for mandatory Guidelines remains unresolved and insufficient here
Certificate of appealability (COA)	Government implied issues are not debatable among jurists	Taylor likely would argue appellate review should be allowed	COA denied: jurists of reason would not find procedural ruling or merits debatable

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (Johnson announced a new rule retroactive on collateral review for ACCA)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (advisory Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges)
United States v. Taylor, 183 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir.) (direct-appeal decision affirming conviction)
In re Encinias, 821 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.) (Tenth Circuit allowed Johnson-based authorization for career-offender Guideline challenges)
United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir.) (treated Guidelines’ residual clause as virtually identical to ACCA residual clause)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for certificate of appealability)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (COA standards when denial rests on procedural grounds)
United States v. Lopez, 100 F.3d 113 (no evidentiary hearing required when record conclusively shows no relief)