United States v. Jerrell Woodley
16-7757
| 4th Cir. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Woodley pleaded guilty (written plea) to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
- The § 924(c) conviction was predicated on assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering activity, itself grounded in two Virginia state offenses.
- The district court sentenced Woodley to 120 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
- Woodley filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; the district court dismissed it as untimely without reaching the merits.
- On appeal, the court granted a certificate of appealability on whether United States v. Davis and In re Thomas required reconsideration of the timeliness ruling; the Government withdrew its timeliness defense but argued the § 924(c) conviction might remain lawful after Davis.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded the district court lacked the benefit of In re Thomas (holding Davis retroactive) and therefore vacated and remanded for the district court to consider the § 2255 motion on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing Woodley’s § 2255 as untimely in light of Davis and Thomas | Woodley: Davis announced a substantive rule; Thomas holds Davis is retroactive on collateral review, so the § 2255 filing is timely | Government: withdrew timeliness defense but contends conviction may still be lawful after Davis | Court vacated and remanded so the district court can consider the § 2255 motion in light of Thomas |
| Whether Woodley’s § 924(c) conviction remains lawful after Davis | Woodley: predicate offense no longer qualifies as a crime of violence under Davis, so § 924(c) conviction may be invalid | Government: argues conviction may survive despite Davis | Court did not decide merits; remanded to district court to address the substantive claim |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (Struck down § 924(c)’s residual clause as unconstitutional)
- In re Thomas, 988 F.3d 783 (4th Cir. 2021) (Held that Davis applies retroactively on collateral review)
- Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) (appellate courts are courts of review, not first view)