United States v. Hanner, 32 F.4th 430

Background

In 2008 Hanner was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced to 300 months under the ACCA based on three Louisiana prior convictions: aggravated burglary (1978), manslaughter (1984), and second-degree battery (1995).
At sentencing Hanner objected to using manslaughter as an ACCA predicate; the court overruled the objection without specifying which clause of § 924(e)(2)(B) it relied on.
On direct appeal Hanner’s conviction was affirmed; a prior § 2255 challenge alleging ineffective assistance over the manslaughter predicate was denied when this Court held manslaughter qualified under the elements clause.
After Johnson v. United States (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause, Hanner sought authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion arguing aggravated burglary (and battery) no longer qualified; this Court granted authorization but referenced only aggravated burglary and battery.
In the district court Hanner added a claim that the manslaughter predicate was invalid under Johnson; the district court denied relief, finding the manslaughter issue foreclosed or, alternatively, that Hanner failed his burden to show the sentencing court relied on the residual clause.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit held the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the manslaughter challenge because Hanner had not obtained appellate authorization to raise it; the court vacated the district court’s discussion of manslaughter and dismissed that portion of the § 2255 motion, and otherwise affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Hanner’s manslaughter-based Johnson claim despite appellate authorization mentioning only aggravated burglary and battery	Hanner: Johnson renders manslaughter non-ACCA and sentencing likely relied on residual clause; district court may consider it	Gov: Hanner never obtained authorization to pursue manslaughter claim; district court lacks jurisdiction	Court: No jurisdiction. Vacated district court’s discussion and dismissed manslaughter claim for lack of authorization
Whether Hanner could obtain relief on his aggravated burglary and battery challenges under his authorized successive § 2255	Hanner: Johnson invalidates ACCA enhancement as to those predicates	Gov: Hanner conceded he had not met the second-gate burden to obtain relief	Court: Hanner passed the appellate authorization (first gate) but conceded he failed the district-court proof (second gate); denial affirmed
Whether the court should authorize a successive § 2255 based on Borden v. United States (recklessness cannot qualify under elements clause)	Hanner: Borden means manslaughter may not qualify under elements clause and warrants authorization	Gov: Borden concerned statutory construction, not a new retroactive constitutional rule; no newly discovered evidence	Court: Denied authorization. Borden is not a new constitutional rule retroactively available under § 2255(h)

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (Struck down ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (Held offenses punishable by reckless mens rea do not qualify under ACCA elements clause)
United States v. Wiese, 896 F.3d 720 (5th Cir.) (Explains two-gate authorization and proof framework for successive § 2255 motions)
United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773 (5th Cir.) (Appellate authority to correct district court’s exercise of jurisdiction)
Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (Held Johnson is retroactively applicable on collateral review)