United States v. Hatten
8:07-cr-00047
D. Neb.Apr 12, 2017Background
- Antoine Hatten pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (Count I) and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count II).
- Original sentence: 292 months (Count I) + 60 months consecutive (Count II); Count I later reduced to 151 months; Count II remains 60 months.
- Hatten filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing Count II must be vacated based on Johnson and subsequent Eleventh Circuit decisions (In re Pinder, In re Chance) that he says extended Johnson’s reasoning to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B).
- Johnson held the ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutional; Welch held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review.
- The district court conducted initial review under Rule 4(b) and dismissed Hatten’s § 2255 motion as time-barred under the one-year limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 2255 motion | N/A | Hatten: Johnson (and Eleventh Circuit extensions, Pinder/Chance) created a new right that triggered § 2255(f)(3) and tolled the limitations period | Dismissed: Motion untimely — § 2255(f)(3) requires a new right recognized by the Supreme Court; Hatten filed more than one year after Johnson |
| Applicability of Eleventh Circuit rulings to toll § 2255 | N/A | Hatten relies on In re Pinder and In re Chance to claim a newly recognized right after his conviction became final | Rejected: Circuit court rulings do not start § 2255(f)(3) limitations; only Supreme Court decisions qualify |
| Retroactivity trigger date | N/A | Hatten contends Welch’s retroactivity or Eleventh Circuit dates start the limitations clock | Court: The limitations period runs from the date the Supreme Court initially recognized the right (Johnson), not from Welch or circuit decisions |
| Merits of Johnson-based challenge to § 924(c) sentence | N/A | Hatten argues his § 924(c) conviction fell within the residual-clause–type language invalidated by Johnson (as extended by Pinder/Chance) | Not reached on merits due to procedural dismissal for untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA’s residual clause void for vagueness)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson retroactive on collateral review)
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (statute of limitations for § 2255 begins when the Supreme Court initially recognizes the right)
- Donnell v. United States, 826 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2016) (recognizes Johnson as a new right for § 2255(f)(3) purposes)
- In re Pinder, 824 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2016) (Eleventh Circuit decision applying Johnson-style reasoning to § 924(c))
- In re Chance, 831 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2016) (Eleventh Circuit decision applying Johnson-style reasoning to § 924(c))