United States v. Amaad Brantley
16-7759
| 4th Cir. | Jul 28, 2021Background
- Brantley pleaded guilty (written plea) to RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) and to a § 924(c) count for possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.
- The § 924(c) charge rested on an assault-with-a-dangerous-weapon predicate that in turn was based on two Virginia state offenses.
- He was sentenced to a total of 144 months imprisonment.
- Brantley filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which the district court dismissed as untimely.
- On appeal, a COA was granted on (1) whether the § 2255 motion was timely in light of United States v. Davis and (2) whether the § 924(c) conviction is invalid because the Virginia offenses do not qualify under § 924(c)’s force clause.
- The Government withdrew its timeliness defense on appeal; the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for the district court to consider the § 2255 motion in light of In re Thomas (holding Davis retroactive).
Issues
| Issue | Brantley | Government | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing Brantley’s § 2255 motion as untimely in light of Davis | Davis announces a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review, making the § 2255 timely | Initially argued untimely; later withdrew timeliness defense on appeal | Vacated and remanded for the district court to consider the § 2255 motion in light of In re Thomas (Davis retroactive) |
| Whether Brantley’s § 924(c) conviction is invalid because the Virginia offenses do not qualify as predicates under § 924(c)’s force clause after Davis | Virginia offenses do not qualify as crimes of violence under the force clause post-Davis | Argues the § 924(c) conviction remains lawful despite Davis | Not decided on appeal; remanded for district court to address merits in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (held § 924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- In re Thomas, 988 F.3d 783 (4th Cir. 2021) (held Davis applies retroactively on collateral review)
- Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (articulates appellate-court review limits: court of review, not first view)