United States v. MCINTOSH, 1:05-cr-00119

Petition by Dannye T. McIntosh seeking to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on Johnson v. United States (challenge to residual clause vagueness).
McIntosh was sentenced in March 2006 and received a career-offender enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
The Seventh Circuit authorized a successive § 2255 motion to raise the Johnson-based challenge; counsel was appointed then withdrew, and McIntosh proceeded pro se.
The Government argued Beckles v. United States bars vagueness challenges to the advisory Guidelines; Court ordered McIntosh to show cause why Beckles did not foreclose relief.
McIntosh argued that Seventh Circuit precedent had rendered the Guidelines effectively mandatory at the time of his sentencing (pre-Corner), so Beckles should not apply to him.
The district court relied on Seventh Circuit precedent (Perry) rejecting that theory and denied the § 2255 motion and a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson-based vagueness challenge to career-offender Guideline can succeed post-Beckles	McIntosh: Beckles does not foreclose his claim because, in the Seventh Circuit pre-Corner, the Guidelines were effectively applied as mandatory at his 2006 sentencing	Government: Beckles bars vagueness challenges to advisory Guidelines; Booker made Guidelines advisory despite some circuit/court errors	Denied — Beckles forecloses the vagueness challenge; Seventh Circuit precedent (Perry) forecloses McIntosh’s theory
Whether erroneous circuit precedent can convert advisory Guidelines into mandatory ones for purposes of a collateral Johnson claim	McIntosh: Erroneous Seventh Circuit decisions (Harris, Welton) made the career-offender provision mandatory in practice at his sentencing	Government: A mistaken circuit decision cannot alter Booker’s rule that Guidelines are advisory; relief had to be sought on direct appeal	Denied — a mistaken circuit decision does not change Booker’s advisory rule; any error should have been raised on direct appeal

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act void for vagueness)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory post-Booker)
Stanley v. United States, 827 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2016) (summarizing Johnson and the residual clause invalidation)
United States v. Corner, 589 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (addressed application of Guidelines in Seventh Circuit post-Booker)
United States v. Harris, 536 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2008) (Seventh Circuit decision concerning Guidelines application)
United States v. Welton, 583 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2009) (Seventh Circuit decision concerning Guidelines application)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)