United States v. Miller
868 F.3d 1182
10th Cir.2017Background
- Miller was sentenced as a career offender under the 1998 Guidelines based in part on a robbery conviction treated as a crime of violence.
- After Johnson v. United States (2015) Miller petitioned under §2255 claiming the residual clause in the Guidelines was void for vagueness and retroactive in collateral review.
- The district court dismissed Miller’s §2255, agreeing the residual clause was void but that the rule was procedural, not retroactive.
- Beckles addressed whether advisory Guidelines are void-for-vagueness; it left open whether the same applies to the mandatory Guidelines under which Miller was sentenced.
- The government later argued timeliness, but Miller’s motion was timely deemed under the court’s discretion to consider forfeited timeliness arguments.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding the residual clause was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Miller because the commentary to §4B1.2(a)5 designated robbery as a crime of violence and thus provided notice and prevented arbitrary enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s vagueness rule retroacts to mandatory Guidelines. | Miller argues Johnson applies retroactively to the mandatory Guidelines. | Beckles limits vagueness challenges to advisory Guidelines; retroactivity depends on Teague principles. | No reversal; vagueness challenge not retroactively applicable to Miller. |
| Whether the residual clause is void-for-vagueness as applied to Miller. | Miller contends the residual clause is vague and thus unconstitutional as applied. | Enumeration of robbery in the commentary clarifies the clause; Miller’s conduct is clearly covered. | Affirm the district court; the commentary renders the clause sufficiently clear. |
| Whether Miller’s §2255 motion is timely given retroactivity. | Motion timely under §2255(f)(3) if the right is newly recognized and retroactive. | Timeliness defense was forfeited; even if raised, the merits fail. | Forfeiture recognized; nonetheless merits fail on the vagueness issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (void-for-vagueness residual clause (ACCA) ruled void)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (U.S. 2017) (Guidelines are advisory; not subject to vagueness challenges)
- Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (U.S. 2006) (courts may address forfeited timeliness defenses in exceptional cases)
- Beckles (concurring discussion), 137 S. Ct. 886 (U.S. 2017) (clarifies scope of vagueness in context of guidelines commentary)
- United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015) (early post-Johnson vagueness discussion in 10th Cir.)