United States v. Manuel Hernandez
18-30712
5th Cir.Nov 24, 2020Background
- Manuel David Hernandez was convicted in 1997 of three bank robberies, three § 924(c) firearms counts, and three § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession counts; sentence totaled 867 months in 1998.
- The Government obtained an ACCA enhancement based on Hernandez’s 1990 Illinois convictions for 21 counts of residential burglary.
- After Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause and Welch made that rule retroactive, Hernandez sought authorization to file a successive § 2255 challenging the ACCA enhancement.
- The Fifth Circuit granted tentative authorization, but the district court dismissed Hernandez’s successive § 2255 under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(4), finding the claim did not rely on Johnson and did not satisfy § 2255(h)(2).
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Hernandez met the required showing that his claim relied on a new, retroactive rule (Johnson) and concluded Hernandez failed to prove it was more likely than not the sentencing court relied on the residual clause.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal and denied Hernandez’s motion to replace the Federal Public Defender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hernandez’s successive § 2255 motion relies on Johnson’s new rule (i.e., whether it was more likely than not the sentencing court relied on the ACCA residual clause) | Hernandez did not meet the burden; the record and legal landscape do not show the sentencing court relied on the residual clause | Hernandez argued the burglary predicates are not violent felonies after Johnson and the sentencing may have invoked the residual clause | Held: Hernandez failed to show his claim relies on Johnson; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether tentative authorization alone permits district-court consideration absent satisfying § 2255(h)(2) | The district court correctly required the movant to actually prove the Johnson-based showing at the district level | Hernandez contended tentative authorization sufficed and relied on earlier Fifth Circuit precedent (Taylor) | Held: Movant must prove the Johnson-based showing in district court; tentative authorization is not dispositive |
| Whether a mere possibility that the sentencing court invoked the residual clause suffices (Taylor contention) | The Government urged the Fifth Circuit’s later precedent requires a higher showing | Hernandez argued Taylor permitted a lower showing (possibility) | Held: Argument foreclosed by United States v. Clay—the movant must show it was more likely than not the residual clause was applied |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction under § 2244(b)(4) to entertain the successive petition | The district court lacked jurisdiction because Hernandez did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a successive § 2255 | Hernandez argued jurisdiction existed and sought relief | Held: District court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson made retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- United States v. Wiese, 896 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2018) (standards for successive § 2255 and district-court proof requirement)
- United States v. Clay, 921 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2019) (movant must show it was more likely than not the residual clause was applied)
- United States v. Taylor, 873 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2017) (earlier Fifth Circuit decision addressed sufficiency of showing—distinguished by later precedent)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for § 2255-related determinations)
- King v. United States, 62 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 1995) (concluding Illinois residential burglary qualified as generic burglary)