Case: 13-13693 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13693
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 8:13-cv-02012-EAK-MAP,
8:05-cr-00355-EAK-MAP-1
LEON KING,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 28, 2015)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Leon King, a federal prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, appeals
the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time-barred. A judge
of this Court granted King a certificate of appealability on the following issue:
Case: 13-13693 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 2 of 8
Whether Mr. King’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is timely under § 2255(f)(3)
because Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), and
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013), are
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
After careful review, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s determination that a § 2255 motion is
time-barred. Drury v. United States, 507 F.3d 1295, 1296 (11th Cir. 2007). The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) imposes a one-
year statute of limitations for filing a § 2255 motion that begins to run from the
latest of, inter alia, “the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final,”
or “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme
Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1), (3).
Any court may determine that a Supreme Court decision applies retroactively for
purposes of § 2255(f)(3). See Dodd v. United States, 365 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th
Cir. 2004), aff’d on other grounds, 525 U.S. 353 (2005).
When a Supreme Court decision results in a new constitutional rule, this rule
applies to all criminal cases pending on direct review but applies to convictions
that are already final only in limited circumstances. See Schriro v. Summerlin, 542
U.S. 348, 351 (2004). In deciding retroactivity issues under § 2255(f)(3), a court
must first find whether the Supreme Court decision in question announced a “new
rule.” Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 300-01 (1989); Howard v. United States, 374
2
Case: 13-13693 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 3 of 8
F.3d 1068, 1073-74 (11th Cir. 2004). If a court determines that a Supreme Court
decision announces a new constitutional rule, it must then determine whether that
new rule satisfies an exception to the general prohibition against the retroactive
application of new rules to cases on collateral review. See Teague, 489 U.S. at
305–10. New substantive rules generally apply retroactively, while new rules of
criminal procedure generally do not. Schriro, 542 U.S. at 351–52.
A rule is substantive, as opposed to procedural, if it “narrow[s] the scope of
a criminal statute by interpreting its terms” or is a “constitutional determination[]
that place[s] particular conduct or persons covered by the statute beyond the
State’s power to punish.” See id. at 351–54 (explaining that a new rule modifying
the elements of an offense is normally substantive because new elements “alter the
range of conduct the statute punishes, rendering some formerly unlawful conduct
lawful or vice versa”); see also Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738
F.3d 1253, 1278 (11th Cir. 2013). New substantive rules apply retroactively
because they “necessarily carry a significant risk that a defendant stands convicted
of an act that the law does not make criminal or faces a punishment that the law
cannot impose upon him.” Schriro, 542 U.S. at 352 (quotation omitted).
New rules of criminal procedure, by contrast, are those that “regulate only
the manner of determining the defendant’s culpability,” such as by allocating
decisionmaking authority as to who must find the “essential facts bearing on
3
Case: 13-13693 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 4 of 8
punishment.” Id. at 353 (emphasis omitted). New rules of procedure “do not
produce a class of person convicted of conduct the law does not make criminal, but
merely raise the possibility that someone convicted with use of the invalidated
procedure might have been acquitted otherwise.” Id. at 352. Procedural rules thus
produce a “more speculative connection to innocence” than do substantive rules,
and courts give retroactive effect to “only a small set of watershed rules of criminal
procedure.” Id. (quotation omitted); see Teague, 489 U.S. at 311–12. The
Supreme Court has explained that in order to qualify as a watershed rule, a
decision must satisfy two requirements. First, it must “alter our understanding of
the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.”
Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 418 (2007) (quotation omitted); see Teague,
489 U.S. at 311. Second, it must announce a rule “without which the likelihood of
an accurate conviction is seriously diminished.” Schriro, 542 U.S. at 352
(quotation omitted) (emphasis omitted).
In Alleyne, the Supreme Court revisited two of its prior cases: (1) Apprendi
v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which requires that any fact that increases the
penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact
of a prior conviction, be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt;
and (2) Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), which held that judicial
factfinding that increased the applicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence
4
Case: 13-13693 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 5 of 8
was permissible under the Sixth Amendment. See Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2157–58.
In Alleyne, the Supreme Court expressly overturned Harris because it was
inconsistent with its decision in Apprendi, and it determined that any facts that, by
law, increase the applicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence for a crime
constitutes an element of the crime that must be submitted to a jury and found
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 2155, 2163.
In Jeanty v. Warden, FCI Miami, we said that “Alleyne does not apply
retroactively on collateral review.” 757 F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014)
(reviewing the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and the application of §
2255(e)’s savings clause). We explained that “neither Alleyne itself nor any later
Supreme Court decision [held] that Alleyne is retroactive,” and that in fact the
Alleyne Court had explained that its holding was an application of the Apprendi
rule. Id. We then noted that we had repeatedly held that the Apprendi rule did not
apply retroactively on collateral review, and, thus, “neither [does] a decision
applying its rule.” Id. at 1285–86; see, e.g., McCoy v. United States, 266 F.3d
1245, 1258 (11th Cir. 2001).
Descamps addressed the process for determining whether a defendant’s prior
conviction qualified as a violent felony for purposes of enhancing his sentence
under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). See Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at
2281–82. The Descamps Court recounted that a court may, in the case of a
5
Case: 13-13693 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 6 of 8
“divisible” statute (that is, one that sets out one or more elements of the offense in
the alternative), apply a “modified categorical approach” to determine which of the
statutory alternatives formed the basis of the defendant’s prior conviction for
purposes of determining whether a prior conviction is a predicate conviction for an
enhanced sentence. See id. However, Descamps held that sentencing courts may
not apply the modified categorical approach to prior convictions under
“indivisible” statutes, meaning statutes that have a “single, indivisible set of
elements.” Id. Instead, such indivisible statutes must be analyzed using the
categorical approach, meaning that courts compare the elements of the statute
forming the basis of the defendant’s prior conviction with the elements of the
generic crime. Id. The Descamps Court discussed Taylor v. United States, 495
U.S. 575 (1990), which had adopted a “formal categorical approach,” and
explained that Taylor recognized a hypothetical “narrow range of cases” --
involving statutes with alternative elements, or divisible statutes -- in which
sentencing courts would use a modified categorical approach to look beyond the
statutory elements of a conviction. See 133 S.Ct. at 2283–84 (quotation omitted).
The Descamps Court explained that the hypothetical type of cases discussed in
Taylor became real in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005), which
“authorized sentencing courts to scrutinize a restricted set of materials” to decide
whether a defendant’s prior conviction under a divisible burglary statute qualified
6
Case: 13-13693 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 7 of 8
as an ACCA predicate conviction. 133 S.Ct. at 2284. The Descamps Court
explained that its caselaw involving the categorical approach and modified
categorical approach involving the ACCA “all but resolve[d]” the instant case
because, applying the modified categorical approach in “the only way [it has] ever
allowed . . . merely helps implement the categorical approach when a defendant
was convicted of violating a divisible statute.” Id. at 2283–85, 2287–89.
In this case, as in Jeanty, Alleyne is not retroactively applicable on collateral
review. See Jeanty, 757 F.3d at 1285–86. Although King argues that Jeanty is
distinguishable because it only addressed the “jury component” of the Alleyne rule
and not the “reasonable doubt component,” this argument is meritless because
Alleyne announced a single holding -- that a fact that increases the statutory
minimum sentence is an element of the crime. See Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2155,
2163. Alleyne did not announce separate rules about jury submission or the
standard of proof, as both are merely consequences of the Supreme Court’s holding
that facts are elements of the crime if they increase the statutory minimum
sentence. See id. at 2155. Further, our opinion in Jeanty did not distinguish
between portions of Alleyne, but rather addressed its retroactivity generally. See
Jeanty, 757 F.3d at 1284–86. Thus, Alleyne is not retroactively applicable to cases
on collateral review.
As for Descamps, it is not a new rule. It merely applied prior precedent to
7
Case: 13-13693 Date Filed: 04/28/2015 Page: 8 of 8
reaffirm that courts may not use the modified categorical approach to determine
whether convictions under indivisible statutes are predicate ACCA violent
felonies. See Descamps, 133 S.Ct. at 2281–85. Descamps is thus unlike other
Supreme Court decisions construing the phrases “violent felony” or “crime of
violence” and limiting the types of convictions that qualify as such, which did
pronounce new substantive rules. See Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 143
(2008) (narrowing one portion of the definition of a crime of violence for purposes
of the career offender guidelines); Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009)
(narrowly construing “violent felony” under the ACCA to exclude failure to report
for incarceration as qualifying as an escape from a penal institution); Zack v.
Tucker, 704 F.3d 917, 925-26 (11th Cir.) (stating that both Begay and Chambers
apply retroactively on collateral review), cert. denied 134 S.Ct. 156 (2013).
For these reasons, neither Alleyne nor Descamps apply retroactively on
collateral review as required by § 2255(h)(2), and, thus, King’s § 2255 motion was
not timely under § 2255(f)(3).
AFFIRMED.
8