United States v. Carrion
236 F. Supp. 3d 1280
D. Nev.2017Background
- Daniel Carrion pled guilty in 2004 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the ACCA to the mandatory 15-year minimum based on three prior convictions (two § 211 robberies and one § 245(c) assault with a deadly weapon).
- The sentencing judge adopted the probation officer’s recommendation that Carrion qualified as an armed career criminal but did not specify which ACCA clause (force, enumerated, or residual) was relied on.
- The Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States struck down the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague; Welch held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review.
- Carrion filed a successive § 2255 motion arguing Johnson entitles him to relief; he contends post-sentencing case law shows his priors no longer qualify under the remaining ACCA clauses.
- The government contended Carrion must show the sentencing court actually relied on the residual clause or that, under the law at the time of sentencing, the residual clause was the only possible basis; the record is silent, so the court examined whether intervening authority may be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Carrion's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant may bring a Johnson-based successive § 2255 when the sentencing court did not specify reliance on the residual clause | Carrion: If the sentencing judge may have relied on the residual clause, Johnson (plus subsequent cases) can be used to show the priors no longer qualify | Gov’t: Defendant must prove the sentencing court actually relied on the residual clause or that, under the law at sentencing, only the residual clause could apply | Court: Adopts Ninth Circuit approach — a showing the judge may have relied on the residual clause suffices to invoke Johnson; intervening case law may then be used to assess prejudice |
| Whether the ACCA predicates here still qualify under the remaining clauses after accounting for post-sentencing precedent | Carrion: Post-Descamps/Mathis and Ninth Circuit precedent show his California robbery convictions do not qualify as ACCA violent felonies | Gov’t: (Conceded) does not dispute current law shows priors no longer qualify | Court: Carrion’s two § 211 robbery convictions do not qualify as ACCA predicates; removing them deprives Carrion of three predicates and requires vacatur of the ACCA sentence |
| Remedy and immediate release risk | Carrion: With ACCA removed, guideline range and statutory maximum are far lower; he has already served more than the new maximum | Gov’t: Asked to be allowed to show cause why release should be delayed | Court: Vacated ACCA enhancement, resentenced to 10 years (statutory maximum); ordered briefing on immediate release and potential resentencing hearing within seven days |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (holding Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (restricting use of documents beyond the statutory elements to determine ACCA predicates)
- United States v. Dixon, 805 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding California Penal Code § 211 robbery is not an ACCA violent felony)
- In re Adams, 825 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2016) (post-sentencing ACCA cases may be applied to evaluate a Johnson claim)
- In re Hires, 825 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2016) (discussing standards for successive § 2255 Johnson claims)