United States v. McCauley, 3:06-cr-00154

McCauley, convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), sought relief by filing a successive § 2255 motion after Johnson announced the ACCA residual clause was void for vagueness.
The Sixth Circuit granted permission to file the successive motion, finding McCauley made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, and transferred the motion to the district court.
On initial review the Magistrate Judge concluded McCauley still had three qualifying violent-felony predicates that did not rely on the ACCA residual clause, but withdrew that report after objections and ordered the Government to answer.
The United States Attorney subsequently conceded McCauley is entitled to relief, explaining his aggravated-robbery convictions required only possession of a deadly weapon (not use) and thus did not qualify as ACCA violent felonies.
The Magistrate Judge recommended vacating McCauley’s ACCA-based sentence and setting the case for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA residual clause entitles McCauley to relief	Johnson invalidates the residual clause; McCauley is no longer a career offender and his ACCA-enhanced sentence exceeds the statutory maximum	McCauley argued he lacks sufficient predicate convictions after Johnson to be an ACCA offender	Government conceded and the Magistrate Judge recommended vacating the ACCA sentence and resentencing
Whether McCauley had three qualifying ACCA predicate violent felonies independent of the residual clause	Government previously suggested he had only one qualifying predicate during the Sixth Circuit briefing	McCauley maintained his prior convictions did not qualify as ACCA predicates post-Johnson	Government conceded the predicates do not qualify; relief warranted

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson announced a new substantive rule with retroactive effect on collateral review)
In re Watkins, 810 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2015) (applied Johnson retroactively in the Sixth Circuit)
United States v. Nagy, 144 F. Supp. 3d 928 (N.D. Ohio 2015) (analyzed whether aggravated-robbery convictions required use of a weapon or merely possession)