United States v. Summer
Criminal No. 2000-0383
| D.D.C. | Mar 30, 2022Background
- Sumner pleaded guilty to attempted armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d)) under a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreeing to a 25‑year sentence; he did not appeal.
- At sentencing the Career Offender Guideline (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) (“three strikes”) were implicated by prior Pennsylvania convictions (robbery, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse).
- Sumner filed a successive § 2255 relying on Johnson v. United States (voiding ACCA’s residual clause) and the D.C. Circuit authorized a second petition limited to his Career Offender Guideline challenge.
- The Government opposed on jurisdictional, waiver, timeliness, retroactivity, vagueness, and predicate‑crime grounds; the court requested supplemental briefing on whether his convictions qualify as crimes of violence.
- The court held (1) it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an uncertified § 3559(c) challenge, (2) Sumner was not barred by his plea or waiver from bringing a § 2255 vagueness challenge to the Career Offender Guideline, (3) Johnson’s reasoning extends to the mandatory Career Offender residual clause, and (4) Sumner’s Pennsylvania robbery convictions do not qualify as predicate crimes of violence under the remaining clauses, so resentencing is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to consider § 3559(c) challenge | Sumner: Johnson‑based § 3559 attack is part of same retroactivity issue and may be considered. | Government: D.C. Circuit authorized only Career Offender claim; court lacks jurisdiction over uncertified § 3559 claim. | Court: Denied review of § 3559(c) claim for lack of appellate certification. |
| Effect of guilty plea / plea‑waiver on collateral attack | Sumner: Plea did not waive § 2255 attack on an unconstitutional sentence; no clear waiver language; enforcing waiver would be miscarriage of justice. | Government: Voluntary plea forecloses collateral claims; Sumner accepted plea benefits. | Court: Plea/waiver do not bar Sumner’s § 2255 challenge to the Career Offender Guideline. |
| Applicability/retroactivity of Johnson to mandatory Career Offender Guideline and vagueness challenge | Sumner: Johnson’s due‑process rationale applies equally to the mandatory Guideline residual clause; it fixed sentences and therefore is subject to vagueness review. | Government: Johnson addressed ACCA only; Beckles limits vagueness challenges to advisory Guidelines; extension to mandatory Guidelines is an open/new question. | Court: Johnson’s rationale extends to mandatory Career Offender residual clause; residual clause may be attacked as void for vagueness. |
| Whether Pennsylvania first‑degree robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" predicate | Sumner: PA robbery is overbroad — can be committed recklessly, may lack a person/presence requirement, and subsection (iii) sweeps nonviolent conduct; thus it cannot serve as an enumerated predicate. | Government: Elements and commentary (Application Note) show robbery requires force and corresponds to generic robbery; robbery therefore qualifies. | Court: Government conceded elements clause fails (Borden); under enumerated analysis PA robbery is overbroad (encompasses nonviolent conduct and lacks required person/presence), so it is not a qualifying predicate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson announced a substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause)
- Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (elements clause excludes offenses punishable based on reckless mens rea)
- United States v. Sheffield, 832 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (D.C. Cir. applied Johnson reasoning to the Guidelines’ residual clause)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical and modified categorical approaches to predicate offenses)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limitations on using non‑element facts to determine whether a prior offense is a categorical match)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (making the federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory)