422 F.Supp.3d 299
D.D.C.2019Background
- Darryl Carter pleaded guilty (2004) to Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and using a shotgun during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); sentenced to 160 months (Hobbs Act) + 120 months consecutive (§ 924(c)) = 280 months under then-mandatory Guidelines as a career offender.
- His career-offender status rested on three prior convictions (D.C. indecent act on a minor; D.C. escape; federal felon-in-possession).
- After Johnson (2015) and related Supreme Court decisions, Carter sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging (1) § 924(c)’s residual-clause predicate and (2) the mandatory career-offender Guideline’s residual clause.
- The D.C. Circuit authorized a second/successive § 2255 filing; briefing was held pending Beckles, Dimaya, and Davis.
- The Court concluded (a) Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A) (the elements clause), so the § 924(c) conviction stands; and (b) the residual clause in the mandatory career-offender Guideline (§ 4B1.2(a)) is void for vagueness under Johnson, so Carter’s Hobbs Act sentence must be vacated and he must be resentenced without the career-offender enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Carter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Should Carter’s § 924(c) conviction be vacated because the § 924(c) residual clause is void and Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the elements clause? | Concedes Davis invalidates § 924(c) residual clause but argues Hobbs Act robbery still qualifies under the elements clause. | Argues Hobbs Act can reach threats to intangible/economic interests and thus does not categorically involve threatened use of physical force. | Held: Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause; § 924(c) conviction not vacated. |
| 2) Does Carter’s plea-agreement waiver bar his career-offender challenge under Johnson? | The waiver language ("new and previously unavailable information") should preclude his § 2255 challenge. | The waiver is ambiguous and should be construed against the Government; it does not clearly waive challenges based on intervening legal developments. | Held: Waiver ambiguous; does not bar Carter’s Johnson-based challenge. |
| 3) May Carter proceed even though this is a second/successive § 2255 filing—does his claim satisfy § 2255(h)(2)/§ 2244 gatekeeping? | Argues the district court must dismiss absent a showing that the motion actually contains the new rule; the Johnson rule does not "contain" the mandatory-Guidelines claim. | Argues the motion "contains" Johnson’s new rule and the district court should consider the merits; certification was granted by the D.C. Circuit. | Held: Court adopts an expansive reading: Carter’s motion contains the new rule made retroactive by Johnson/Welch; gatekeeping satisfied and the claim may proceed. |
| 4) Is Carter’s career-offender challenge timely under § 2255(f)(3)? | Argues the right recognized in Johnson is narrower than Carter’s asserted right and § 2255(f)(3) therefore does not apply; claim untimely. | Argues § 2255(f)(3) is satisfied because Carter asserts the same right identified in Johnson (not to be sentenced under an indeterminate residual clause) and filed within one year. | Held: Court finds § 2255(f)(3) timely; a challenge to the mandatory career-offender residual clause asserts the same right recognized in Johnson and was filed within the limitations period. |
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 is retroactive on collateral review)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge; left open pre-Booker mandatory-Guidelines question)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (§ 16(b) residual clause void under Johnson reasoning)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (§ 924(c) residual clause void for vagueness)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (rendered Guidelines advisory)
- In re Williams, 759 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (gatekeeping for second/successive motions; limits on appellate certification)
- United States v. Hunt, 843 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (plea-agreement waiver ambiguity construed against Government)