United States v. Roy Green
898 F.3d 315
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Green attacked an inmate, pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit murder, and was sentenced; the District Court designated him a career offender under the (then-mandatory) Sentencing Guidelines §4B1.2, increasing his Guidelines range and sentence.
- Green’s sentence (151 months consecutive) depended on the Guidelines career-offender residual clause; without it his range would have been lower.
- Green’s conviction became final in 2005; he filed a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion within one year of Johnson (2015), arguing Johnson rendered the Guidelines residual clause unconstitutionally vague.
- The District Court stayed the motion pending Beckles, then dismissed Green’s §2255 motion as untimely under §2255(f), holding Johnson did not newly recognize the right Green asserts.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the Supreme Court has not “recognized” a rule extending Johnson to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines and so §2255(f)(3) does not restart Green’s limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s void-for-vagueness holding restarted §2255(f)(3) limitations for challenges to the mandatory Guidelines residual clause | Johnson recognized a right not to be sentenced under a vague residual clause; Green filed within one year of Johnson so his §2255 is timely | Beckles confined Johnson to the ACCA/advisory Guidelines; Supreme Court left open whether mandatory Guidelines are subject to vagueness challenges, so §2255(f)(3) does not apply | Motion untimely: Johnson did not "recognize" the right Green asserts for §2255(f)(3) purposes |
| Whether Beckles resolved vagueness of mandatory Guidelines | (Green) Booker/Johnson logic implies Johnson applies to mandatory Guidelines | (Gov) Beckles limited Johnson; mandatory Guidelines question remains open | Beckles leaves mandatory-Guidelines vagueness unresolved; only Supreme Court could recognize such a right |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held advisory Sentencing Guidelines not subject to vagueness challenges; left open mandatory-Guidelines question)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (held Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (rendered the federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory)
- Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353 (2005) (interpreted §2255(f) to start limitations period from date the right was initially recognized)