United States v. Hayes
255 F. Supp. 3d 216
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Defendant Everette Lee Hayes, Jr. was convicted in 2004 of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced to 235 months under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on three prior predicate convictions.
- Hayes unsuccessfully appealed; his sentence was affirmed after a Booker remand and a prior § 2255 ineffective-assistance petition was denied and affirmed on appeal.
- Following the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States and its retroactivity in Welch, Hayes sought permission to file a second/successive § 2255 petition and obtained authorization from the D.C. Circuit to bring a Johnson-based claim.
- Hayes filed a pro se § 2255 motion raising four grounds: (1) due process/Johnson challenge to ACCA, and (2)-(4) various constitutional and notice claims unrelated to Johnson.
- The Government produced certified convictions showing Hayes had at least three prior serious drug offenses (1990, 1992, 1995 PCP-related convictions), which qualify under ACCA as "serious drug offenses."
- The district court denied relief: it held Johnson did not affect Hayes because his ACCA enhancement rested on qualifying drug convictions, and the other three grounds were procedurally barred as untimely, successive (without authorization), and procedurally defaulted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson's invalidation of ACCA's residual clause entitles Hayes to vacatur | U.S.: Johnson inapplicable because Hayes's ACCA enhancement was based on serious drug offenses, not the residual clause | Hayes: Johnson renders his predicate offenses non-qualifying and his ACCA enhancement invalid | Denied — Hayes's three PCP convictions qualify as ACCA "serious drug offenses," so Johnson does not affect his sentence |
| Whether Hayes's non-Johnson claims (notice, Article I, Tenth Amendment) are timely | U.S.: These claims are untimely and procedurally barred | Hayes: Raised now (pro se) as part of his § 2255 motion | Denied — claims are time-barred under § 2255(f)(1), successive without appellate authorization, and procedurally defaulted for failure to raise on direct appeal |
| Whether Hayes could expand his authorized successive petition beyond Johnson | U.S.: Authorization covered Johnson claim only; additional claims require separate authorization | Hayes: Sought relief generally in his pro se filing | Denied — D.C. Circuit authorization was limited to Johnson-based claim; other claims are successive without authorization |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (holding Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (holding federal sentencing guidelines advisory)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (cause standard for procedural default where claim was not reasonably available)
- United States v. Cicero, 214 F.3d 199 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (one-year § 2255 limitation rule)
- United States v. Pettigrew, 346 F.3d 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (prejudice standard for collateral review)