Teron Harris v. United States
686 F. App'x 345
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Teron Harris pleaded guilty in Jan 2014 to being a felon in possession of a firearm after two prior Ohio convictions (4th-degree burglary and 4th-degree assault) that were punishable by >1 year.
- Presentence report applied USSG §2K2.1(a)(2) and §4B1.2(a) (the Guidelines’ “crime of violence”/residual-clause language), yielding an 84–105 month range; the district court varied downward and imposed 60 months. Harris did not appeal.
- After Johnson v. United States (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness, Harris filed a pro se §2255 motion in Feb 2016 arguing Johnson’s rule should apply retroactively to his Guidelines-based enhancement.
- The district court denied relief, distinguishing ACCA (which raises statutory maximums) from advisory Guidelines enhancements; Harris appealed.
- While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Beckles v. United States (2017), holding the advisory Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause is not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding Harris’s §2255 motion was untimely because Johnson/Beckles did not make a new retroactive right applicable that would restart §2255’s one-year limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s void-for-vagueness holding renders a §2255 claim attacking a Guidelines residual-clause enhancement timely | Harris: Johnson created a new substantive rule that should apply retroactively to collateral review of Guidelines-based enhancements | Government/District Ct: Johnson applied to ACCA only; Guidelines are advisory and not invalidated by vagueness | Court: Beckles controls; Guidelines residual clause not subject to vagueness challenge, so Johnson does not make Harris’s claim timely |
| Whether §2255(f) tolling/reset applies based on a new Supreme Court rule | Harris: One-year period should run from Johnson decision recognizing the right | Government: No new right applies to advisory Guidelines; judgment final earlier and time not tolled | Court: §2255(f)(3) inapplicable; motion untimely |
| Whether district court’s failure to increase statutory maximum distinguishes Harris from ACCA claimants | Harris: Enhancement mirrored ACCA language so Johnson should govern | Government: ACCA affects statutory maximums; Guidelines are advisory and do not change statutory range | Court: Distinction upheld; advisory Guidelines do not implicate vagueness rule applied to ACCA |
| Whether Harris is entitled to collateral relief despite failing to appeal original sentence | Harris: Entitled to collateral review under Johnson | Government: Procedural default and time bar apply; no retroactive Johnson-based relief for Guidelines | Court: Denied relief; §2255 motion time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held void for vagueness)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause not subject to vagueness challenge)
- Sanchez-Castellano v. United States, 358 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2004) (judgment final when time to appeal expires even without filing)