United States v. Derrek Arrington
4 F.4th 162
D.C. Cir.2021Background
- Derrek Arrington was convicted in 2000 of assaulting a federal officer and being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the then-mandatory 2000 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines to 240 months after the court found he qualified for enhancements based on prior robbery convictions that the Guidelines treated as "crimes of violence."
- The Guidelines defined "crime of violence" with a residual clause that used the same vague language Johnson later invalidated in the ACCA. The sentence enhancements relied on that residual clause.
- In 2015 the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States, holding the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness; Welch later held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review.
- Arrington filed a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion within a year of Johnson, arguing Johnson’s rule invalidates the mandatory Guidelines residual clause that produced his enhancements; the district court denied the motion as untimely under § 2255(f).
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, holding § 2255(f)(3) applies because Johnson recognized a right not to have one’s sentence dictated by the residual-clause vagueness and Arrington had asserted that right; the court remanded for further proceedings. The opinion recognizes Beckles and Dimaya and includes a dissent urging a narrower reading of Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) | Arrington argues his § 2255 motion is timely because he filed within one year of Johnson, which "initially recognized" the right he asserts. | Government argues Johnson recognized only a right not to be sentenced under the ACCA residual clause (or a statute’s residual clause), so Arrington’s claim against the Guidelines is not the same right. | Court held § 2255(f)(3) applies: Johnson recognized the right not to have a sentence dictated by the residual-clause vagueness, and Arrington asserted that right. |
| Scope of the right recognized in Johnson | Johnson announced a general right against sentencing under the residual-clause vagueness which can apply beyond the ACCA when the clause "dictates" the sentence. | The right recognized in Johnson is narrow and tied to the ACCA; it did not recognize a right invalidating the mandatory Guidelines residual clause. | Court adopts a general-but-refined description: Johnson recognized a right not to have a sentence dictated by unconstitutionally vague residual-clause language; that description covers Arrington’s assertion. |
| Meaning of "asserted" in § 2255(f)(3) | "Asserted" requires only that the movant invoke or claim the newly recognized right, not prove its applicability on the merits. | Government would collapse timeliness into a merits inquiry and require the movant to show the Supreme Court’s decision mandates relief. | Court held "asserted" means the petitioner need only invoke the newly recognized right; merits determination is separate. |
| Effect of Beckles and related precedents | Arrington: Beckles does not control because he was sentenced under mandatory (pre-Booker) Guidelines, not advisory Guidelines. | Government: Beckles shows Johnson does not automatically apply to Guidelines residual clauses; question is open. | Court acknowledges Beckles but finds it distinguishes advisory Guidelines; Beckles does not defeat timeliness under § 2255(f)(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (applied Johnson to invalidate § 16(b) residual clause on same vagueness grounds)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (made the Sentencing Guidelines advisory)
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (timing under § 2255(f)(3) begins when Supreme Court initially recognizes the right)
- United States v. Arrington, 309 F.3d 40 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (affirming Arrington’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal)