United States v. Antonio Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020

In 1999 Blackstone was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy, and violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); in 2000 he received a total sentence of 290 months (230 months for Hobbs counts, consecutive 60 months under § 924(c)).
The district court applied the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines and designated Blackstone a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior California convictions for second-degree robbery and voluntary manslaughter.
Blackstone sought collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after Johnson v. United States (2015) and Welch (2016), arguing the Guidelines’ residual clause (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2) and § 924(c)’s residual clause are unconstitutionally vague and thus his prior convictions no longer qualify as crimes of violence.
The district court found the motion timely and denied relief on the merits as to the Guidelines enhancement; it declined a certificate of appealability on the § 924(c) issue but did grant one concerning the career‑offender ruling.
The Ninth Circuit held Blackstone’s § 2255 motion untimely because the Supreme Court has not recognized the particular right he asserts (Johnson has not been held to apply to sentences imposed when the Guidelines were mandatory), and therefore affirmed. The court granted a certificate of appealability for the § 924(c) issue only to be cautious, but denied relief as untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson’s vagueness rule applies to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2) enabling a timely § 2255(f)(3) filing	Johnson announced a new, retroactive right; therefore Blackstone timely filed under § 2255(f)(3) and his career‑offender enhancement must be vacated	Johnson and Welch addressed ACCA; Supreme Court has not recognized extension to mandatory Guidelines, so § 2255(f)(3) does not apply	Motion untimely: Supreme Court has not recognized the right for mandatory Guidelines; Blackstone’s § 2255 claim denied as time‑barred
Whether § 924(c)’s residual clause is void for vagueness such that § 924(c) conviction is invalid	After Johnson Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under § 924(c), so § 924(c) conviction and 60‑month consecutive sentence should be vacated	Supreme Court has not held § 924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutional; extension of Johnson to § 924(c) remains an open question	Challenge uncertified by district court is untimely under AEDPA; Ninth Circuit grants COA to hear appeal but denies relief as time‑barred

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson held retroactive on collateral review)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Johnson does not apply to advisory Sentencing Guidelines)
Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (statutory residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague)
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines rendered advisory)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for certificate of appealability)
United States v. Geozos, 870 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)