351 F. Supp. 3d 106
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Navarro Hammond was convicted in 1993 for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and marijuana and for maintaining a drug premises; sentenced to 380 months based on a career-offender designation under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1) driven by two prior convictions characterized as "crimes of violence."
- The career-offender label raised his offense level to 37 and placed him in Criminal History Category VI, producing a Guidelines range of 360 months to life; the district court imposed 380 months.
- Hammond pursued collateral relief over many years (including prior § 2255 and § 3582 motions); after Johnson v. United States (challenging ACCA’s residual clause) and Welch (making Johnson retroactive), the D.C. Circuit authorized Hammond to file a successive § 2255 petition claiming the mandatory Guidelines’ residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.
- The government conceded one predicate (D.C. robbery) does not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements or enumerated clauses; thus Hammond’s career-offender status depended on the residual clause.
- The court addressed procedural obstacles (AEDPA timeliness, successive-petition gatekeeping, and procedural default) and held Hammond cleared them and is entitled to vacatur and resentencing because Johnson’s rule applies to mandatory-Guidelines residual clauses and his priors do not qualify under the remaining clauses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hammond) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) | Motion filed within one year of Johnson; § 2255(f)(3) runs from the date the right was recognized and Hammond asserted that right | Johnson applies only to ACCA; motions challenging mandatory-Guidelines residual clause are not timely unless the Supreme Court directly recognized that right | Timely — § 2255(f)(3) runs from when the asserted right was recognized; asserting Johnson-based right within a year suffices (merits considered separately) |
| Successive-petition gatekeeping under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2) | Johnson announced a new right (invalidating vague residual clauses) and Welch made it retroactive; D.C. Circuit authorized filing | Government contends Hammond cannot satisfy § 2255(h)(2) because the Supreme Court has not recognized the right as applying to mandatory Guidelines and not made that specific rule retroactive | § 2255(h)(2) satisfied: Johnson announced the right and Welch made it retroactive; certification and § 2244 incorporation do not bar relief |
| Procedural default of vagueness claim | Claim was novel and unforeseeable until Johnson; cause and prejudice exist because Johnson overruled precedent and, if correct, Hammond’s sentence likely would be shorter | Government argues Hammond defaulted by not raising this on direct appeal and that futility is not adequate cause; also contends lack of retroactivity or prejudice | No default bar: Johnson was novel (overruled prior precedent); Hammond shows cause and prejudice; courts in D.D.C. uniformly reject government’s default argument |
| Merits — Does Johnson require invalidating mandatory-Guidelines residual clause? | Johnson’s vagueness rule forbids fixing sentences by an indeterminate residual clause; mandatory Guidelines function like laws fixing sentences pre-Booker, so Johnson’s rule applies | Beckles held advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenge; government says mandatory Guidelines differ from ACCA and do not produce the same constitutional infirmity | Held: Johnson’s rule governs; mandatory Guidelines’ residual clause shared the ACCA defects (fixed sentences, ordinary-case inquiry, "serious potential risk" language). Johnson (and Dimaya) control; Beckles does not foreclose relief for pre-Booker mandatory-Guidelines sentences |
| Merits — Does Hammond remain a career offender absent the residual clause? | One prior (robbery) does not qualify under elements or enumerated clauses; without the residual clause Hammond lacks two qualifying priors | Government conceded robbery does not qualify under non-residual clauses | Held: Government concedes and court finds Hammond is no longer a career offender; resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts other than prior convictions that increase penalty must be found by a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Sixth Amendment limits judge-found facts that increase sentences)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (mandatory Guidelines unconstitutional; Guidelines rendered advisory)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- 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 Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenge)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (statutory residual clause in §16(b) void for vagueness; applies Johnson)