United States v. Albert Pickett, 916 F.3d 960

Background

In 2006 Pickett pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and was sentenced under ACCA to 180 months based on four Florida prior convictions (robbery; two batteries on an officer; aggravated battery on a pregnant victim).
Pickett did not object at sentencing or appeal; he filed a § 2255 motion in 2010 (unsuccessful) and a second § 2255 motion in 2016 after the Supreme Court invalidated ACCA’s residual clause.
The district court resentenced Pickett in 2017, finding he lacked three qualifying ACCA predicates and vacated the ACCA enhancement; the government appealed.
After the appeal was filed, this Court decided Beeman, which set a heightened burden for § 2255 movants seeking relief based on Johnson: the movant must show it is "more likely than not" the sentencing court relied only on the residual clause. The parties agree Beeman governs here.
The appellate record does not reveal whether the sentencing court relied on ACCA’s elements clause, enumerated-offenses clause, or residual clause; lower-court precedent at the time was ambiguous and the panel could not conclude Pickett met Beeman’s burden.
Because the district court did not apply Beeman’s standard and the historical factfinding remains unresolved, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the appellate decision and remanded for the district court to apply Beeman and further develop the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pickett)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether Pickett met Beeman’s "more likely than not" standard that the sentencing court relied only on ACCA’s residual clause	Beeman standard satisfied because Florida battery plainly qualified under the residual clause in 2007 and it was at best uncertain it met the elements clause	Battery also qualified under the elements clause (or at least there was sufficient precedent to make reliance on the elements clause plausible), so Pickett cannot show it was more likely than not the court relied only on the residual clause	Pickett failed to meet Beeman on the appellate record; remand required for district court to apply Beeman with fuller factfinding.
Whether, as a matter of historical law in 2007, Florida battery clearly qualified under ACCA’s elements clause	Florida battery was uncertain under the elements clause in 2007	Precedent such as Glover suggested battery on an officer was a crime of violence under elements-like language	Court found the precedent ambiguous and not dispositive; historical law did not allow a finding that Pickett met Beeman on appellate record.
Whether post-sentencing cases (decided after 2007) inform what the sentencing judge likely relied on	Post-sentencing precedent is probative of how courts treated offenses	Government relied on some later decisions treating battery-on-officer as violent felony	Court held later cases "cast very little light" on what the sentencing court actually relied upon at the time; they are of limited relevance to historical fact inquiry.
Whether remand is required or appellate resolution is appropriate	Remand needed so district court can apply Beeman and develop record	Government did not oppose remand given Beeman was not considered below	Court vacated and remanded for district court factfinding under Beeman.

Key Cases Cited

Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2017) (movant must show it is more likely than not sentencing court relied only on ACCA’s residual clause)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (Curtis Johnson) (interpreting ACCA elements clause)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA’s residual clause as void for vagueness)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (holding Johnson (2015) is retroactive to cases on collateral review)
United States v. Glover, 431 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2005) (discussion characterizing battery-on-officer as a crime-of-violence under Guidelines language)
United States v. McGill, 450 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (residual-clause analysis: prohibited conduct must present a substantial risk of physical injury)
United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (treating ACCA and Guidelines definitions as comparable)