Thomas Hoffner, Jr. v.
870 F.3d 301
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Hoffner was sentenced in 2002 under the mandatory (pre-Booker) Sentencing Guidelines as a career offender based on a Guideline residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) and received a lengthy term.
- The residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2) was textually identical to the ACCA residual clause invalidated in Johnson v. United States.
- Johnson (2015) struck the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague; Welch (2016) held Johnson retroactive on collateral review.
- Beckles (2017) held that the advisory Guidelines (post-Booker) are not subject to vagueness challenges, but left open pre-Booker mandatory-Guidelines cases.
- Hoffner sought authorization to file a successive § 2255 petition relying on Johnson; the panel’s task was only to decide whether he made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C).
- The Third Circuit applied a permissive, flexible prima facie standard and authorized Hoffner to file a successive petition, leaving merits for the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Hoffner's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hoffner made a prima facie showing to authorize a successive § 2255 petition under § 2244(b)(3)(C) | Hoffner relies on Johnson to challenge the career-offender residual clause that produced his mandatory-Guidelines sentence | The Government contends Hoffner did not sufficiently show that his claim "relies on" Johnson (arguing limits based on other precedents) | Court: Prima facie standard is permissive; Hoffner made the showing and authorization granted |
| What it means for a claim to "rel[y] on" a new rule under § 2255(h)(2) | "Relies on" should be read flexibly; petitioner need only show the new rule substantiates the claim or could be non-frivolously extended | Government urged a stricter test (similar to Eighth Circuit/Donell) requiring no "second new rule" inquiry | Court: Interpret "relies" permissively and case-by-case; detailed merits (including extension questions) left to district court |
| Effect of Beckles (advisory-Guidelines vagueness holding) on pre-Booker, mandatory-Guidelines challenges | Hoffner argues Beckles does not foreclose challenges where the Guideline was mandatory at sentencing | Government points to Beckles to argue against vagueness claims generally | Court: Beckles does not resolve pre-Booker mandatory-Guidelines cases; such challenges remain open and may proceed to district court |
| Whether the court should adopt the Eighth Circuit’s Donnell approach (reject extensions) | Hoffner rejects Donnell’s strict approach; favors flexible test used by multiple circuits | Government urged Donnell-style restriction to prevent creating a "second new rule" | Court: Declined Donnell; rejected requirement to do full Teague-style analysis at gatekeeping stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (struck ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (held Johnson retroactive on collateral review)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (sets out the three prerequisites for a § 2255(h)(2) new-rule claim)
- In re Pendleton, 732 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2013) (authorized successive § 2255 petitions where merits questions left for district court)