427 F.Supp.3d 143
D. Mass.2019Background
- Boria was convicted in 2001 of multiple heroin and methamphetamine distribution counts under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and sentenced in March 2003.
- The district court applied the pre-Booker Career Offender enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 / § 4B1.2 residual clause) based on four prior felonies, yielding offense level 34, Criminal History Category VI, a guidelines range of 262–327 months, and a 327-month sentence.
- Direct appeal and earlier § 2255 / § 3582 motions were denied; Boria filed a second § 2255 in June 2016 after Johnson, and the First Circuit granted leave to file the successive petition.
- Boria argued the Career Offender residual clause was unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States, and that Johnson (as made retroactive by Welch) applies to pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines; he sought resentencing without the enhancement.
- The government argued the petition was untimely, procedurally defaulted, and that Beckles forecloses Johnson-based challenges to the Guidelines; the First Circuit’s Moore decision and district-court precedents supported applying Johnson to pre-Booker Career Offender clauses.
- The court held Boria’s § 2255 motion was timely and not procedurally barred (Boria showed cause and prejudice), applied Johnson to the pre-Booker Career Offender residual clause, allowed the petition, and ordered resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Johnson to the Career Offender residual clause | Johnson invalidates the identically worded Career Offender residual clause | Beckles bars vagueness challenges to Guidelines; Johnson does not apply to Guidelines | Court: Johnson applies to pre-Booker Career Offender residual clause (following Moore and Roy) |
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) | Petition filed within one year of Johnson/Welch; thus timely under § 2255(f)(3) | Petition is untimely because Johnson does not create a right applicable here | Court: Petition timely; Johnson rule applies and was made retroactive by Welch |
| Retroactivity (Johnson rule to pre-Booker sentences) | Johnson is substantive and, per Welch and Moore, reaches pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines that fixed sentencing ranges | Beckles suggests advisory Guidelines are immune; government says pre-Booker Guidelines do not "fix" sentences like ACCA | Court: Johnson’s rule applies retroactively to pre-Booker Career Offender residual clause in this circuit |
| Procedural default / prejudice | Failure to raise the claim earlier excused by cause (novelty of Johnson); shows reasonable probability of a different sentence without the enhancement | No actual prejudice; court would have imposed same sentence via upward departure given criminal history | Court: Procedural default excused (cause shown); prejudice shown (reasonable probability of lower sentence); § 2255 relief allowed |
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 announced a new substantive rule and is retroactive on collateral review)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (made the Sentencing Guidelines advisory)
- Moore v. United States, 871 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2017) (First Circuit: Johnson applies to pre-Booker Career Offender residual clause)
- Roy v. United States, 282 F. Supp. 3d 421 (D. Mass. 2017) (this Court applied Johnson to pre-Booker Career Offender clause)
- Wilder v. United States, 806 F.3d 653 (1st Cir. 2015) (standards for prejudice and § 2255 burden)
- Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2011) (§ 2255 timeliness principles)
- Damon v. United States, 732 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (grounds for § 2255 relief)