United States v. Eubanks
2:97-cr-00110
D.S.C.Dec 30, 2019Background
- Eubanks was convicted (jury) of armed bank robbery (Count 1), possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (924(c), Count 2), and felon-in-possession enhanced under 922(g) and 924(e) (Count 3); he received life sentences for Counts 1 and 3 (concurrent) and a consecutive life for Count 2.
- The Fourth Circuit authorized a successive §2255 filing based on Johnson v. United States; Eubanks filed a pro se §2255 in 2016 and later supplemented it through counsel.
- Eubanks argued Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause and—by analogy—residual clauses in the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. §3559, so his ACCA/career designations and mandatory life under §3559 are invalid.
- The government moved to dismiss/for summary judgment; the court considered timeliness under 28 U.S.C. §2255(f)(3) and circuit authority interpreting Beckles and Johnson.
- The court held that Johnson's newly recognized right applies to the ACCA residual clause but not automatically to the Guidelines or §3559; those two claims were untimely. Although the ACCA claim was ripe, the court declined to reach it under the concurrent sentence doctrine because Count 1’s §3559 life sentence (valid under the enumerated clause) is concurrent and equal in duration to Count 3’s life.
- The court denied Eubanks’s motions, granted the government’s motion, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson voids Eubanks’s ACCA-based enhancement for Count 3 | Johnson voids ACCA residual clause; without it Eubanks lacks required predicates | Even if ACCA invalid, concurrent sentence doctrine makes resentencing Count 3 futile | Court did not reach merits of ACCA claim because concurrent sentence doctrine bars review of Count 3 |
| Whether Johnson (and Welch) create a timely §2255 claim attacking Sentencing Guidelines residual clause | Eubanks contends similar language makes Guidelines residual clause void and thus timely under §2255(f)(3) | Beckles and subsequent circuit law foreclose applying Johnson to the advisory Guidelines; no newly recognized right for Guidelines residual clause | Court held Johnson does not create a timely right for Guidelines challenges; Sentencing Guidelines claim is untimely |
| Whether Johnson/Welch render §3559’s residual clause timely under §2255(f)(3) | Eubanks argues §3559 contains the same residual clause and is affected by Johnson | Beckles and Fourth Circuit precedent limit Johnson to ACCA; no newly recognized right for §3559 residual clause | Court found §3559 claim untimely under §2255(f)(3); however court analyzed §3559 validity under concurrent-sentence inquiry and found §3559 sentence valid |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue | Eubanks seeks COA | Government opposes | COA denied; reasonable jurists would not find the court’s rulings debatable |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson made retroactive on collateral review)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenge)
- United States v. Brown, 868 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2017) (Johnson’s scope limited; similarities to ACCA insufficient to invoke Johnson)
- United States v. Charles, 932 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining and applying the concurrent sentence doctrine in Johnson-based collateral challenges)
- United States v. Johnson, 915 F.3d 223 (4th Cir. 2019) (New York robbery convictions qualify as §3559 serious violent felonies under the enumerated clause)
- United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (New York robbery convictions qualify as enumerated violent offenses)
- Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)