United States v. Booker
240 F. Supp. 3d 164
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Charles Booker was convicted in 2004 of drug offenses, possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), and using a firearm during a drug offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); sentencing court applied ACCA and the Guidelines career-offender provision.
- Initial sentence (2004) totaled 35 years; after Booker v. United States (Booker) remedial proceedings, Judge Urbina resentenced Booker to an aggregate 30 years in 2006–2007.
- Booker filed a pro se § 2255 motion after Johnson v. United States (2015) and Welch (2016) rendered ACCA’s residual clause void and retroactive; D.C. Circuit authorized a successive § 2255 filing based on Johnson.
- Booker’s three prior felonies were: attempted robbery (D.C.), second-degree assault (Md.), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine (D.C.); parties agree only the drug conviction is a qualifying serious drug offense.
- The government conceded Booker no longer qualifies as an ACCA armed career criminal but disputed whether the record shows the sentencing court relied on ACCA’s residual clause and urged limiting relief to the § 922(g) mandatory minimum.
- The district court concluded Booker is not an armed career criminal under ACCA, found procedural obstacles were overcome, determined Booker was prejudiced by the career-offender Guidelines treatment, granted § 2255 relief, and ordered resentencing with a revised PSR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Booker may obtain § 2255 relief based on Johnson (ACCA residual-clause invalidation) | Booker: Johnson applies retroactively (Welch) and his prior convictions no longer produce ACCA status; he made timely successive § 2255 filing | Govt: Record does not show judge relied on the ACCA residual clause; Booker’s motion may not be Johnson-based and relief should be limited | Court: D.C. Circuit authorized filing; sentencing record need not show explicit reliance on residual clause; relief allowed |
| Procedural default (failure to raise ACCA/career-offender claims on direct appeal) | Booker: Johnson was unforeseeable; cause exists and he shows prejudice because ACCA produced a higher mandatory minimum and Guidelines range | Govt: Claims were available earlier and thus defaulted | Court: Cause shown (Johnson unforeseeable); prejudice shown because ACCA and Guidelines application materially affected sentence |
| Whether Booker still qualifies under ACCA or as a Guidelines career offender | Booker: Only the drug conviction qualifies; attempted robbery (D.C.) and Md. 2d-degree assault are not violent felonies under elements/enumerated clauses | Govt: Even if ACCA status undone, relief should be limited to mandatory minimum on § 922(g) and not necessarily disturb Guidelines until Beckles resolved | Court: Only one predicate (drug) qualifies; Booker is not an armed career criminal; career-offender status would not obtain under current precedent, so Guidelines enhancement is undermined |
| Scope of remedy — partial (vacate ACCA mandatory minimum only) or full resentencing | Booker: Court may "unbundle" the sentencing package and resentence on remaining counts | Govt: Equitable to limit benefit to ACCA relief only, await Beckles on Guidelines residual-clause issue | Court: Exercising discretion, court vacated sentence and ordered revised PSR and prompt resentencing; declined to delay for Beckles |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson rule is retroactive on collateral review)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines are advisory)
- United States v. Sheffield, 832 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (Guidelines § 4B1.2 residual clause void for vagueness)
- United States v. Royal, 731 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2013) (Maryland second-degree assault not ACCA violent felony)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (changes in Guidelines ranges affect sentenced outcomes)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (cause for procedural default when legal basis not reasonably available)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (limits on retroactivity of new rules)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing courts must consider Guidelines range)