Case: 17-10732 Date Filed: 11/06/2019 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10732
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-03153-TWT; 1:02-cr-00377-TWT-GGB-4
PATRICK BLASINGAME,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 6, 2019)
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-10732 Date Filed: 11/06/2019 Page: 2 of 2
Patrick Blasingame appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion to vacate, in which he argued that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015), invalidated his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction (predicated on a conspiracy to
commit Hobbs Act robbery). The district court granted a certificate of appealability
on the issue of whether Johnson applies to § 924(c)(3)(B).
While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided United States v.
Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323, 2336 (2019), in which it held that § 924(c)(3)’s
residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. And we held in a published order that
Davis announced “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” under 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). See In re Hammoud, 931 F.3d 1032, 1038–41 (11th Cir. 2019).
Because the district court did not have the benefit of these decisions when
adjudicating Mr. Blasingame’s § 2255 motion, we vacate and remand so that the
district court may reconsider, in light of these new precedents, whether he is entitled
to any § 2255 relief. In addition to the issues the parties have raised up to now, the
district court may wish to consider whether it makes sense to permit Mr. Blasingame
to amend his motion in light of Davis. We express no opinion about this or any other
issue.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
2