United States v. Gill
2:11-cr-00026
| W.D. Wash. | Feb 22, 2018Background
- Corey Eugene Gill pleaded guilty (May 10, 2011) to seven counts of bank robbery and was sentenced effectively to 158 months after the court treated him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because prior bank robbery convictions were deemed "crimes of violence."
- Gill filed a § 2255 petition (June 15, 2016) arguing Johnson v. United States invalidated the Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause; the district court initially granted relief (Feb. 7, 2017).
- After Beckles v. United States (2017) held the Guidelines’ residual clause is not void for vagueness, the court vacated its prior order and allowed Gill to withdraw his petition.
- Gill filed the instant § 2255 petition (May 10, 2017), arguing Mathis v. United States created a new, retroactive rule showing his Nevada robbery conviction is not a crime of violence.
- The Government opposed, contending the petition was untimely and functionally successive; the court found it was not successive but concluded Mathis did not announce a new retroactive constitutional rule and thus Gill’s petition was untimely under § 2255(f)(3).
- The court denied Gill’s § 2255 motion, dismissed the action, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is a second or successive § 2255 motion | Gill: Not successive because prior § 2255 was withdrawn after Beckles | Gov: Functional equivalent of a second/successive petition and should be dismissed or transferred | Court: Not second/successive because prior petition was withdrawn; therefore not barred as successive |
| Whether petition is timely under § 2255(f)(3) based on a new Supreme Court rule | Gill: Mathis announced a new, retroactive rule making his petition timely | Gov: Mathis is not a new constitutional rule; it is statutory/clarifying, so § 2255(f)(3) does not apply | Court: Mathis did not create a new rule of constitutional law; petition is untimely under § 2255(f)(3) |
| Whether Gill’s Nevada robbery conviction is a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines after Mathis | Gill: Mathis shows categorical analysis excludes his Nevada conviction as a crime of violence | Gov: Categorical approach remains governed by Taylor/Descamps and Mathis did not change the law in Gill’s favor | Court: Did not reach merits due to untimeliness; relied on precedent holding Mathis is clarification, not a new retroactive rule |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue | Gill: Relief may be debatable | Gov: No basis for COA | Court: Declined to issue a certificate of appealability (no substantial debate) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarified application of the categorical approach under ACCA/statutory interpretation)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explained limits of modified categorical approach vs. categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (established the categorical approach for determining predicate offenses)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (explained that a habeas petition filed after a prior petition was dismissed without adjudication is not "second or successive")