United States v. Herbert Galloway, Jr.
19-6365
| 4th Cir. | Aug 14, 2019Background
- Herbert L. Galloway Jr. pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition and received a 180-month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
- The ACCA enhancement was based on Galloway having at least three prior predicate convictions, including a South Carolina conviction for assault on a law enforcement officer (ALEO) under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-9-320(B).
- Galloway filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing his ALEO conviction no longer qualifies as an ACCA predicate after Johnson v. United States and related Fourth Circuit precedents.
- The district court denied § 2255 relief, relying primarily on an earlier decision holding the South Carolina ALEO statute still satisfied the ACCA force clause.
- The Fourth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and reviewed the legal question de novo.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial because its controlling precedent had been overturned: the court held the South Carolina ALEO statute is not categorically a "violent felony" under the ACCA force clause, leaving Galloway without the requisite number of ACCA predicates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Galloway's South Carolina ALEO conviction qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the force clause | Galloway: ALEO is not categorically a violent felony after Johnson and Fourth Circuit precedent | Government: ALEO remains a violent felony under the ACCA force clause, so enhancement stands | Held: ALEO is not a categorical ACCA violent felony; vacated and remanded |
| Whether vacatur of district court denial of § 2255 is required when an ACCA predicate is invalidated | Galloway: Invalidating the ALEO predicate removes the three-predicate basis for ACCA, rendering the sentence unlawful | Government: Prior ruling supporting predicate remains controlling | Held: A retroactive change that eliminates a required ACCA predicate makes the sentence unlawful under § 2255; relief appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2013) (addressed categorical analysis for assault on an officer under state law)
- United States v. Jones, 914 F.3d 893 (4th Cir. 2019) (held S.C. § 16-9-320(B) is not a categorical ACCA violent felony under the force clause)
- United States v. Newbold, 791 F.3d 455 (4th Cir. 2015) (explained legal error where ACCA enhancement lacks sufficient predicates)
- United States v. Hodge, 902 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2018) (§ 2255 relief is warranted when a sentence was unlawfully enhanced under ACCA)