United States v. Roderick Corlion Pearson, 940 F.3d 1210

In January 2007 Pearson robbed two Alabama banks at gunpoint, was arrested, indicted on five counts (two bank-robbery counts, two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) brandishing counts, and one § 922(g) felon-in-possession count), pled guilty to three counts, and was convicted on two counts.
At initial sentencing (2007) mandatory minimums (including an ACCA 180-month enhancement on Count Five) produced a total sentence of 564 months.
Pearson filed a § 2255 motion in 2009 that the district court denied; after Johnson v. United States and Welch, Pearson obtained this Court’s authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion challenging his ACCA enhancement only.
The district court granted relief as to Count Five (ACCA), vacated Counts One and Three under the sentencing-package doctrine, and resentenced Pearson to 447 months.
At the resentencing Pearson raised a new, unauthorized § 2255 challenge (indictment failed to allege elements of the brandishing counts). The district court reached the merits and denied that claim.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit held the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the new, unauthorized § 2255 claim and vacated that merits ruling; it affirmed the 447-month sentence as not substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Pearson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether district court had jurisdiction to decide Pearson’s new § 2255 claim raised at resentencing without this Court’s authorization	Pearson argued the claim was properly raised and the district court could decide it at resentencing	The Government did not object in district court; implicit position that claim was meritless, but jurisdictional requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) required appellate authorization for successive claims	Court held district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Pearson never obtained this Court’s authorization to file the successive § 2255 claim; vacated merits decision and instructed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the 447-month total sentence (post-ACCA vacatur and resentencing) is substantively unreasonable	Pearson argued the sentences for Counts One, Three, and Five were unnecessary given the long mandatory consecutive terms on Counts Two and Four and that a 384-month total (i.e., no additional time for Counts One/Three/Five) would suffice	District court emphasized the nature/circumstances of two armed bank robberies, balanced with Pearson’s rehabilitation, and imposed concurrent low-end Guidelines sentences for Counts One/Three/Five plus mandatory consecutive terms for Counts Two/Four	Court affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion and Pearson did not meet his burden to show the 447-month sentence was substantively unreasonable

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (holding ACCA residual clause void under Due Process)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (holding Johnson announces a new substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
United States v. Mixon, 115 F.3d 900 (11th Cir. 1997) (discussing district court authority to adjust unchallenged count under § 2255(b))
United States v. Davis, 112 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 1997) (interpreting § 2255(b) as allowing broad post-vacatur sentencing relief)
United States v. Salmona, 810 F.3d 806 (11th Cir. 2016) (district court without subject-matter jurisdiction cannot decide merits)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review standard for sentencing)
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (standards for abuse-of-discretion review of sentence)
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (certificate-of-appealability jurisdictional rule)