695 F. App'x 851
6th Cir.2017Background
- Von Cox pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment (mandatory 15-year minimum under the ACCA) plus five years supervised release.
- The PSR classified Cox as an Armed Career Criminal based on three predicate convictions, including aggravated burglary and evading arrest.
- Cox’s plea agreement expressly waived his right to file motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct; he did not file a direct appeal.
- After Johnson v. United States, Cox filed a pro se § 2255 motion arguing that Johnson invalidated his aggravated burglary (and related) predicates, removing the ACCA enhancement.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion and a subsequent Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration but granted a certificate of appealability on the Johnson-based claim.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Cox’s broad § 2255 waiver in the plea agreement bars his Johnson-based collateral attack and therefore the court need not decide the merits of the predicate-offense challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cox can pursue a Johnson-based § 2255 challenge to ACCA enhancement | Johnson and subsequent cases render his prior aggravated burglary (and other) convictions no longer qualifying as ACCA predicates | Cox waived his right to § 2255 relief (except for IAC or prosecutorial misconduct) in his plea agreement, so the challenge is barred | Waiver is enforceable; § 2255 claim barred; appeal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Braden v. United States, 817 F.3d 926 (6th Cir. 2016) (legal questions on § 2255 review reviewed de novo)
- Davila v. United States, 258 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2001) (plea-agreement waivers of collateral-review rights generally enforceable)
- Fleming v. United States, 239 F.3d 761 (6th Cir. 2001) (defendant may waive constitutional rights via plea agreement)
- Angel v. Kentucky, 314 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2002) (district-court rulings on § 2255 may be affirmed on any record-supported ground)
- United States v. Morrison, 852 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2017) (pre‑Mathis waivers can bar subsequent Mathis-based challenges)
- In re Garner, [citation="664 F. App'x 441"] (6th Cir. 2016) (denying authorization to file successive § 2255 where plea waiver barred the claim)