United States v. Butler
253 F. Supp. 3d 133
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Butler pled guilty in 2012 to distribution of crack cocaine and to being a felon in possession of a firearm under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement calling for a 180‑month sentence; the court applied a 15‑year ACCA mandatory minimum based on three prior convictions.
- Butler’s three prior convictions: 1995 attempted distribution of cocaine (conceded serious drug offense) and two 2000 D.C. convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon (ADW).
- After sentencing, the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States (2015) (holding the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness) and Welch v. United States (2016) (making Johnson retroactive), prompting collateral §2255 claims in this district.
- Butler moved under §2255 arguing that, in light of Johnson (2015), his two D.C. ADW convictions no longer qualify as ACCA violent felonies (so he lacks three qualifying predicates) and he should be resentenced.
- The government resisted on timeliness, procedural‑default, and by arguing Butler’s ADW convictions qualify under the ACCA elements clause; the court concluded Butler could proceed and addressed the merits.
- The court held (1) Butler demonstrated cause and prejudice to overcome procedural default, and (2) D.C. ADW does not qualify as an ACCA violent felony because it can be committed with reckless conduct or by use of weapons or means that do not necessarily involve the “violent force” required by the ACCA; Butler must be resentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Butler's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butler may proceed under §2255 after Johnson (2015) | Johnson v. U.S. voided ACCA residual clause; Butler timely filed within one year and shows cause and prejudice | Claims untimely/procedurally defaulted or not based on Johnson (2015) | Butler’s Johnson claims are timely; cause and prejudice established; collateral review permitted |
| Whether sentencing court relied on ACCA residual clause (affecting Johnson claim) | Need only show the court may have relied on residual clause; record does not specify clause | Must show actual reliance on residual clause | Court accepts that it may have relied on the residual clause and allows claim to proceed |
| Whether D.C. ADW qualifies under ACCA elements clause (use of violent force) | ADW can be committed recklessly or by dangerous means (poison, chemicals) that need not involve violent force, so it does not meet ACCA’s “violent force” requirement | ADW’s dangerous‑weapon element and D.C. law show likely use of force; Redrick supports qualifying similar offenses | Court holds D.C. ADW does not qualify: it can be committed recklessly or by means not involving ACCA’s required violent force |
| Whether ADW’s mens rea (recklessness) satisfies ACCA elements clause | Reckless mens rea is insufficient for ACCA’s elements clause (higher intent required) | Recklessness can satisfy “use” of force under analogous precedents | Court adopts view that recklessness is insufficient for ACCA elements clause and so ADW fails to qualify |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge under Due Process)
- United States v. Redrick, 841 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (elements‑clause analysis finding Maryland armed robbery a violent felony based on weapon‑use requirement)
- United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014) (definition of “physical force” in §922(g)(9) context; note limits distinguishing misdemeanor domestic violence context)
- Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016) (reckless misdemeanor domestic‑assault convictions qualify under §922(g)(9); court left open ACCA §924(e) question)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (negligent or merely accidental conduct does not satisfy statute defining crime of violence)