Thomas v. USA (GPR)
3:16-cv-00405
E.D. Tenn.May 31, 2019Background
- Petitioner John Benell Thomas pleaded guilty in 2007 to (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)); (2) possession with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D)); and (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Based on prior Tennessee convictions he was designated both a career offender and an armed career criminal, producing a Guidelines range of 262–327 months; the court sentenced him to an aggregate 156 months after a government downward-departure motion. Thomas did not appeal.
- In June 2016 Thomas filed a pro se § 2255 motion seeking resentencing under Johnson v. United States, arguing Johnson invalidated the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) and Guideline § 4B1.2.
- The Government opposed; the court determined no evidentiary hearing was required because the record conclusively showed no entitlement to relief.
- The court examined whether Johnson’s vagueness holding affected (a) his § 924(c) conviction and (b) his career-offender Guidelines classification, and also considered whether to grant a certificate of appealability (COA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson invalidates § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual-clause basis for Thomas’s § 924(c) conviction | Johnson’s vagueness holding applies to § 924(c)’s residual clause, so the § 924(c) conviction must be vacated | Sixth Circuit precedent distinguishes § 924(c)’s residual clause from ACCA; also Thomas was convicted for possession in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense (not a crime of violence) | Denied — Johnson does not void Thomas’s § 924(c) conviction; conviction stands |
| Whether Johnson invalidates the career-offender enhancement based on Guideline § 4B1.2’s residual clause | Career-offender classification depended on § 4B1.2’s residual clause, which Johnson rendered void for vagueness | Supreme Court held Guidelines’ residual clause is not subject to vagueness attack; Thomas’s career-offender status relied on controlled-substance convictions anyway | Denied — Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge to § 4B1.2, and his career-offender status rested on drug convictions |
| Whether to grant a certificate of appealability (COA) | Thomas argued the claims warrant review | Government opposed issuance | Denied — reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s assessment debatable |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges; § 4B1.2’s residual clause not void for vagueness)
- United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2016) (held Johnson’s reasoning does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a COA when claims are rejected on the merits or on procedural grounds)