William Joseph Headbird v. United States, 813 F.3d 1092

In 2005 William Joseph Headbird was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm as a felon and the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), finding seven prior "violent felony" convictions and sentencing him to 327 months.
Headbird appealed and this court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct review in 2006.
In 2014 Headbird filed a § 2255 motion arguing Descamps v. United States rendered three prior escape convictions non-violent felonies, and that in light of Begay and related decisions his motor-vehicle convictions also were not violent felonies, so he lacked three qualifying predicates for ACCA.
He contended his § 2255 filing was timely under § 2255(f)(3) because Descamps announced a new, retroactive right within one year prior to his filing.
The district court denied relief as untimely under § 2255(f)(1), concluding Descamps did not announce a newly recognized retroactive right; the court issued a certificate of appealability.
On appeal Headbird also requested remand under Johnson v. United States (raised for the first time in reply); the panel declined to expand the certificate to consider that argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Descamps announced a "new rule" that triggers § 2255(f)(3) timeliness	Descamps created a new substantive rule requiring categorical analysis for indivisible statutes and is retroactive; thus § 2255 timely	Descamps applied existing categorical/modified-categorical principles and did not announce a new rule; timeliness runs from finality of conviction	Court held Descamps did not announce a new rule; § 2255 filing was untimely under § 2255(f)(1)
Whether district court must remand or reconsider sentence in light of Johnson (raised in reply)	(Raised belatedly) Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause may affect ACCA status; remand requested	Argument not within certificate of appealability and not raised earlier; court should not consider it on appeal	Court declined to expand certificate and denied remand; noted Headbird may seek authorization for a successive § 2255 based on Johnson

Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (held modified categorical approach inapplicable to indivisible statutes whose elements do not match the generic offense)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (established categorical approach for determining ACCA predicates)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limited documents courts may consult under the modified categorical approach)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for determining when new rules apply retroactively on collateral review)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (narrowed scope of offenses qualifying under ACCA’s residual clause)
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (standard for determining whether a decision announces a new rule)