United States v. Greer
684 F. App'x 700
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Greer pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) and was sentenced to 188 months’ imprisonment plus five years supervised release.
- The district court applied the advisory Sentencing Guidelines’ career-offender enhancement (USSG § 4B1.1) based on at least two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence.
- Greer’s direct appeal and his first § 2255 motion were denied; he later sought permission to file a second § 2255 motion after Johnson v. United States.
- Johnson (and Welch’s retroactivity holding) invalidated the ACCA residual clause; Tenth Circuit precedent (Madrid) extended that reasoning to the career-offender guideline residual clause in USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), so Greer was authorized to challenge his sentence.
- The district court denied Greer’s second § 2255 motion, finding his prior convictions still qualified without relying on the residual clause; Greer appealed.
- While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Beckles, holding the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges—foreclosing challenges to § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greer’s career-offender enhancement under USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) is void for vagueness | Greer: The guideline’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson | Government: Beckles controls; Guidelines are advisory and not subject to vagueness challenge; Greer’s sentence stands | The court held Beckles forecloses vagueness challenges to advisory Guidelines; Greer’s claim fails as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson’s rule is retroactive on collateral review)
- United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015) (applied Johnson reasoning to the career-offender guideline’s residual clause)