United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 16-1612
DARNELL A. MOORE,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND
OR SUCCESSIVE MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Before
Thompson, Kayatta, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Inga L. Parsons for petitioner.
Michael A. Rotker, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
Criminal Division, Appellate Section, with whom Kenneth A. Blanco,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,
Criminal Division, Trevor N. McFadden, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, William D.
Weinreb, Acting U.S. Attorney, and Dina M. Chaitowitz, Assistant
U.S. Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, were on brief, for
respondent.
September 13, 2017
KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Darnell Moore seeks to file a
successive motion to vacate his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. Before he can do so, this court must certify that his
motion "contain[s] . . . a new rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The new
rule upon which Moore's motion relies, according to Moore, is that
announced in Johnson v. United States (Johnson II), 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015). Johnson II declared unconstitutionally vague the
residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act's (ACCA)
definition of a "violent felony," see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The Supreme Court made Johnson II retroactive to cases on
collateral review in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257
(2016). Moore seeks to argue in the district court that the new
rule created by Johnson II invalidates the residual clause of the
career offender guideline applied at his sentencing, which
occurred before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), made
the guidelines advisory, id. at 245 (opinion of Breyer, J.). For
the following reasons, we grant Moore the certification he
requests.
I.
In July 2000, Darnell Moore was charged with two counts
of unarmed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). See
United States v. Moore, 362 F.3d 129, 131 (1st Cir. 2004). He
- 2 -
pleaded guilty in May 2002. Id. Sentencing occurred in October
2002, id. at 133–34, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in
Booker.
The sentencing court concluded that Moore fell under the
career offender guideline. Moore, 362 F.3d at 131–32. That
guideline applied to defendants who were at least eighteen years
old at the time of the offense of conviction, whose offense of
conviction was a "crime of violence or a controlled substance
offense," and who had "at least two prior felony convictions of
either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense."
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 4B1.1 (U.S.
Sentencing Comm'n Nov. 1, 2001). The definition of a "crime of
violence" included
any offense under federal or state law,
punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year, that--
(1) has as an element the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force
against the person of another, or
(2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or
extortion, involves use of explosives, or
otherwise involves conduct that presents a
serious potential risk of physical injury to
another.
Id. § 4B1.2 (Nov. 1, 2001). Moore had prior convictions in
Massachusetts state courts for assault and battery, assault and
battery on a corrections officer, breaking and entering during the
daytime, and assault with a dangerous weapon. To classify Moore
as a career offender, the district court must have concluded that
- 3 -
at least two of these prior convictions satisfied the guidelines'
definition of "crime of violence."
The career offender guideline increased Moore's criminal
history category to VI and, because the unarmed bank robbery
conviction carried a statutory maximum sentence of twenty years,
see 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), increased Moore's offense level to thirty-
two. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (Nov. 1, 2001). Using this offense
level and this criminal history category, Moore's mandatory
guidelines sentencing range was 210 to 262 months.1 See Moore,
362 F.3d at 133–34; see also U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (Nov. 1, 2001)
(Sentencing Table). The district court sentenced him to 216
months' imprisonment. Moore, 362 F.3d at 134.
In March 2005, Moore filed a motion to vacate his
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argued, among other things,
that Booker applied retroactively and thus the district court erred
by treating the guidelines as mandatory at his sentencing. The
district court denied the motion, ruling that Booker did not have
retroactive effect. Moore did not appeal that denial.2
1
Moore was denied an acceptance of responsibility reduction
to his offense level because he had absconded before sentencing.
Moore, 362 F.3d at 133–34.
2
Moore later filed a motion to "Vacate Sentence as Void,"
apparently under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). After
that motion was denied and Moore appealed, this court treated his
motion as a second § 2255 motion that had been filed without the
certification required by § 2255(h), and therefore summarily
- 4 -
In June 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion
in Johnson II. The opinion addressed the ACCA, which mandates the
increase of minimum and maximum sentences for certain crimes
whenever the defendant has previously been convicted of a "violent
felony." The ACCA's definition of a "violent felony" reads, in
relevant part:
[T]he term "violent felony" means any crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year . . . that--
(i) has as an element the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force
against the person of another; or
(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion,
involves use of explosives, or otherwise
involves conduct that presents a serious
potential risk of physical injury to
another . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (emphasis added).
In Johnson II, the Supreme Court held that the clause
underlined above, called the "residual clause," was so vague that
it violated due process for the ACCA to use it to increase minimum
or maximum allowable sentences. 135 S. Ct. at 2557. The Court's
prior opinions had established that the residual clause was to be
applied in the following way: First, a court would identify an
"ordinary case" of the crime in question. Id. Second, the court
would determine whether that ordinary case presented a serious
potential risk of physical injury to another, with the level of
affirmed the district court's denial of the motion. See Judgment,
United States v. Moore, No. 11-2078 (1st Cir. May 14, 2012).
- 5 -
risk that qualified as "serious" being identified with reference
to the level of risk involved in the enumerated offenses (burglary,
arson, extortion, or a crime involving the use of explosives).
Id.
The Court concluded that this way of analyzing the
residual clause "combin[ed] indeterminacy about how to measure the
risk posed by a crime with indeterminacy about how much risk it
takes for the crime to qualify as a violent felony." Id. at 2558.
That is, it was unclear both how to identify the "ordinary case"
of a crime and how much risk of physical injury to another counted
as a "serious potential risk." This compounded indeterminacy "both
denie[d] fair notice to defendants and invite[d] arbitrary
enforcement by judges." Id. at 2557. The residual clause thereby
contravened a central component of due process: "[t]he prohibition
of vagueness in criminal statutes," id. at 2556–57, which applies
"not only to statutes defining elements of crimes, but also to
statutes fixing sentences," id. at 2557.
The question before the Court in Welch was whether
Johnson II applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.
The first step in answering this question was determining whether
Johnson II announced a new rule of constitutional law. "'[A] case
announces a new rule . . . when it breaks new ground or imposes a
new obligation' on the government." Chaidez v. United States, 568
U.S. 342, 347 (2013) (first alteration in original) (quoting Teague
- 6 -
v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989) (O'Connor, J., plurality
opinion)). "To put it differently, . . . a case announces a new
rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the
time the defendant's conviction became final." Id. (emphasis
omitted) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301). A holding is only
dictated by precedent if "it would have been 'apparent to all
reasonable jurists.'" Id. (quoting Lambrix v. Singletary, 520
U.S. 518, 527–528 (1997)). However, "a case does not 'announce a
new rule, [when] it [is] merely an application of the principle
that governed' a prior decision to a different set of facts." Id.
(alterations in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Teague, 489
U.S. at 307). The parties in Welch agreed that Johnson II
announced a new rule of constitutional law.
A new rule of constitutional law applies retroactively
to cases on collateral review only if it is a "substantive rule[],"
Welch, 136 S. Ct. at 1264 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Schriro v.
Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351 (2004)), or if it is a "watershed
rule[] of criminal procedure," id. (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494
U.S. 484, 495 (1990)). The parties in Welch also agreed that
Johnson II was not a watershed rule of criminal procedure. Id.
So, the question before the Court in Welch was whether Johnson II
announced a substantive rule.
The Court concluded that it did. "A rule is substantive
rather than procedural if it alters the range of conduct or the
- 7 -
class of persons that the law punishes." Id. at 1264–65 (quoting
Schriro, 542 U.S. at 353). The Court reasoned that "[b]y striking
down the residual clause as void for vagueness, [Johnson II]
changed the substantive reach of the Armed Career Criminal Act,
altering 'the range of conduct or the class of persons that the
[Act] punishes.'" Id. at 1265 (second alteration in original)
(quoting Schriro, 542 U.S. at 353). Johnson II was a substantive
rule because, before that decision, "the [ACCA] applied to any
person who possessed a firearm after three violent felony
convictions, even if one or more of those convictions fell under
only the residual clause." Id. After that decision, by contrast,
"'even the use of impeccable factfinding procedures could not
legitimate' a sentence based on that clause." Id. (quoting United
States v. United States Coin & Currency, 401 U.S. 715, 724 (1971)).
Johnson II was not a procedural decision because it "had nothing
to do with the range of permissible methods a court might use to
determine whether a defendant should be sentenced under the Armed
Career Criminal Act," such as by "'allocat[ing] decisionmaking
authority' between judge and jury, or regulat[ing] the evidence
that the court could consider in making its decision." Id.
(quoting Schriro, 542 U.S. at 353).
- 8 -
Moore filed this § 2255 motion in May 2016, which was
both after Welch and within one year of Johnson II.3 He argues
that the new rule established in Johnson II and made retroactive
by Welch applies directly to the residual clause of the pre-Booker
career offender guideline under which he was sentenced. That
residual clause is identical to the ACCA residual clause at issue
in Johnson II.
While this motion was pending before us, the Supreme
Court decided in Beckles v. United States that the identical
residual clause employed in the post-Booker advisory guidelines is
"not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process
Clause." 137 S. Ct. 886, 892 (2017). Beckles's reasoning relied
on the conclusion that the post-Booker guidelines "do not fix the
permissible range of sentences," id., and therefore "do not
implicate the twin concerns underlying vagueness doctrine--
providing notice and preventing arbitrary enforcement," id. at
894. At our request, the parties filed supplemental briefs
addressing both Beckles and two recent cases from this circuit
that might bear on whether Moore's predicate offenses satisfy other
clauses of the crime of violence definition. See United States v.
Faust, 853 F.3d 39 (1st Cir.), reh'g denied, 2017 WL 3045957 (1st
3
The motion thus fell within the one-year statute of
limitations for filing § 2255 motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).
- 9 -
Cir. July 19, 2017); United States v. Tavares, 843 F.3d 1 (1st
Cir. 2016), reh'g denied, 849 F.3d 529 (1st Cir. 2017).
II.
We next set up the legal lens through which we view
Moore's motion, and then explain why that view favors letting Moore
litigate his second or successive § 2255 motion.
A.
This motion comes to us under the following statutory
provision:
A second or successive motion must be
certified as provided in section 2244 by a
panel of the appropriate court of appeals to
contain--
. . .
(2) a new rule of constitutional law,
made retroactive to cases on collateral review
by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The cross-referenced section, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244, contains several provisions that require this court's
consideration of a request for certification of a successive motion
to be fast, unreviewable, and limited.
First, "[t]he court of appeals shall grant or deny the
authorization to file a second or successive application not later
than 30 days after the filing of the motion." Id. § 2244(b)(3)(D).
Although we have exceeded this time limitation here, we have
previously concluded that it "operates as a guideline, not as an
imperative." Rodriguez v. Superintendent, Bay State Corr. Ctr.,
- 10 -
139 F.3d 270, 272–73 (1st Cir. 1998), abrogated in part by Bousley
v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998). Nevertheless, the existence
of this thirty-day guideline suggests that a request for
certification that can only be denied by working through complex
issues is a certification request that should likely be granted.
See Evans-García v. United States, 744 F.3d 235, 238 (1st Cir.
2014) ("[I]n ruling on certification requests, we often must strive
to move more quickly than a full consideration of the merits might
reasonably require.").
Second, "[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a
court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall
not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for
rehearing or for a writ of certiorari." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).
The unavailability of review for a certification decision counsels
greater caution before denying an authorization than before
granting one. See Evans-García, 744 F.3d at 239 ("We are
cognizant . . . that if we err in granting certification, ample
opportunity for correcting that error will remain. Conversely,
should we err in denying certification, [the petitioner] will have
no opportunity to appeal or seek rehearing en banc."); see also In
re Embry, 831 F.3d 377, 382 (6th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that "[a]
denial of a motion to authorize a successive petition is
unreviewable--not by the en banc court, not by the Supreme Court,"
- 11 -
whereas, "[b]y granting such a motion, even many such
motions . . . , we decide nothing with finality").
Third, we may "authorize the filing of a second or
successive application only if [we] determine[] that the
application makes a prima facie showing that the application
satisfies the requirements of this subsection." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(C). Although the statutory language is not pellucid,
other circuits have interpreted "the requirements of this
subsection" to mean the requirements contained in § 2244(b),
including § 2244(b)(1)–(2), even though those subsections only
appear to apply to § 2254 motions by their terms. See, e.g., Bell
v. United States, 296 F.3d 127, 128 (2d Cir. 2002); Bennett v.
United States, 119 F.3d 468, 469 (7th Cir. 1997). Moore has not
challenged this consensus. Under this interpretation, the movant
must "make[] a prima facie showing," 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C),
"that the claim [contained in the successive motion] relies on a
new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable," id. § 2244(b)(2)(A).
A "prima facie showing" at the certification stage is
merely "a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller
exploration by the district court." Rodriguez, 139 F.3d at 272–
73 (quoting Bennett, 119 F.3d at 469). When deciding whether to
certify a § 2255 motion, "our task is not to decide for certain
- 12 -
whether the petition has merit, but rather to determine whether
'it appears reasonably likely that the application satisfies the
stringent requirements for the filing of a second or successive
petition.'" Evans-García, 744 F.3d at 237 (quoting Rodriguez, 139
F.3d at 273). Although the standard, thus described, appears quite
easy to satisfy, Rodriguez nevertheless contains an admonition
that "despite its superficially lenient language, the [prima
facie] standard erects a high hurdle." 139 F.3d at 273.
Reconciling these seemingly contradictory statements about the
nature of the prima facie showing requires close attention to the
facts of our prior cases.
Rodriguez addressed a petitioner's successive motion
under § 2254 for release from state custody. The petitioner argued
that the reasonable doubt instructions at his trial had violated
the due process clause under Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990)
(per curiam), which held that a reasonable juror could interpret
the "moral certainty" language in some reasonable doubt
instructions "to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of
proof below that required by the Due Process Clause." Id. at 41.
In Rodriguez, this court carefully analyzed whether Cage announced
a new rule of constitutional law, whether that rule had been made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
and whether it was previously unavailable. See 139 F.3d at 273–
76. We concluded that the rule had not been made retroactive by
- 13 -
the Supreme Court, and we therefore denied certification. Id. at
276. Perhaps due to this conclusion, we did not analyze in detail
whether the rule would have applied to the instruction given in
the petitioner's case. Instead, we simply noted that in Cage, the
Supreme Court held that "some moral certainty instructions 'allow
a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required
by the Due Process Clause,'" Rodriguez, 139 F.3d at 273 (quoting
Cage, 498 U.S. at 41), and that at the petitioner's trial "the
jury instructions on reasonable doubt included several statements
that likened proof beyond a reasonable doubt to proof to a moral
certainty," id.
Evans-García addressed the § 2255 motions of two
petitioners, both of whom argued that they had been subject to a
mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for
a crime committed while under the age of eighteen, in violation of
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Evans-García, 744 F.3d at
236. The government conceded that Miller announced a new rule of
constitutional law that applied retroactively to cases on
collateral review and that was previously unavailable. Id. at
238. We accepted all three concessions, although we paused over
the concession about retroactivity. Id. at 238–40. We ultimately
declined to engage in a "full inquiry" at the certification stage,
"even on a purely legal issue such as retroactivity." Id. at 237.
We noted that
- 14 -
[w]e generally do not rule on questions--
whether of fact or of law--until a district
court has done so, a practice that enhances
the quality of our decisions both by allowing
us to consider the district court's analysis
and by allowing the parties to hone their
arguments before presenting them to us.
Id. at 237–38 (citation omitted). As to one of the petitioners,
whose sentencing guidelines range under the pre-Booker guidelines
was life imprisonment,4 we certified the petition based on the
government's three concessions. Id. at 236–37, 240. As to the
other petitioner, we denied certification because his guidelines
range was 292 to 365 months in prison, from which the district
court decided to depart upward to a life sentence. Id. at 240–
41. Accordingly, "he was not sentenced pursuant to any statute or
guideline that mandated a sentence of life without parole," id. at
240, so Miller did not apply to him based on the undisputed facts.
We held that "a circuit court should deny certification where it
is clear as a matter of law, and without the need to consider
contested evidence, that the petitioner's identified
constitutional rule does not apply to the petitioner's situation."
Id.
Rodriguez and Evans-García establish a consistent
approach for analyzing whether to certify a successive motion.
4In Evans-García, the government apparently made no argument
that the pre-Booker guidelines were not sufficiently mandatory for
the Miller rule to apply.
- 15 -
The court of appeals should first consider whether, as a legal
matter, the petitioner's motion relies on a new rule of
constitutional law that has been made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court and that was previously
unavailable. If it is clear that one of these questions must be
answered in the negative, as was the case in Rodriguez, the court
may deny certification on that ground. See 139 F.3d at 274–76.
But, if the question is close, as was the case in Evans-García,
the court may leave "even . . . a purely legal issue" for the
district court to resolve. See 744 F.3d at 237. The court of
appeals should then consider the mixed question of whether "the
petitioner's identified constitutional rule . . . appl[ies] to the
petitioner's situation." Id. at 240. If it is "clear as a matter
of law, and without the need to consider contested evidence" that
it does not, the court should deny the certification. Id.
Otherwise, the court should grant it.
B.
Having explained the focused yet tentative nature of the
examination called for in evaluating a request to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion, we turn next to Moore's motion. Distilled
to its essence, his request for relief under § 2255 strikes us as
quite straightforward. Moore contends first that Johnson II
announced a new rule of constitutional law, which Welch made
retroactive. That rule is this: The text of the residual clause,
- 16 -
as employed in the ACCA, is too vague to provide, consistent with
due process, a standard by which courts must fix criminal
sentences. Moore then simply asks that this new rule be applied
directly to another law, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA),
Pub. L. No. 98–473, tit. II, ch. II, 98 Stat. 1837, 1987 (codified
as amended in scattered provisions of 18 U.S.C. and 28 U.S.C.
(2002)), which also used the text of the residual clause, as
employed in the ACCA,5 to provide a standard by which a court fixed
his sentence. So distilled, Moore's petition seems to manifest at
least a reasonable likelihood that it makes the prima facie showing
required for a second or successive motion.
The government balks at this conclusion because a
necessary link in Moore's argument on the merits of his motion is
establishing that the SRA "fixed" sentences.6 This proposition,
5The residual clause of the career offender guideline is
identical to the residual clause of ACCA. The only difference
between the larger subsections containing these residual clauses,
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (Nov. 1, 2001) and 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is that the former lists "burglary of a
dwelling" as an enumerated offense whereas the latter lists just
"burglary." The two clauses have also been interpreted in the
same way. See, e.g., United States v. Ramírez, 708 F.3d 295, 305–
07 (1st Cir. 2013) (using the interpretation of the residual clause
described in Johnson II to apply the residual clause of the career
offender guideline); United States v. Giggey, 551 F.3d 27, 38–41
(1st Cir. 2008) (holding that the residual clause of the career
offender guideline should be interpreted in line with the residual
clause of the ACCA).
6 The government has not argued that we should deny
certification because Moore's prior offenses satisfy the force
clause of the "crime of violence" definition, as interpreted in
- 17 -
the government argues, would be a new rule of constitutional law,
rather than a rule driven solely by the force of Johnson II as
precedent. Thus, the government continues, Moore's request for
certification must fail for several different reasons. First, one
of the new rules of constitutional law that Moore's motion relies
upon (as framed by the government) has not been made retroactive
by the Supreme Court either directly or by logical implication.
See Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 666–67 (2001). Second, on the
government's reading, § 2255(h)(2) requires that any new rule of
constitutional law be recognized by the Supreme Court, not a lower
court. Third, it is inappropriate to recognize a new rule in a
certification proceeding.
We are not sufficiently persuaded that we would need to
make new constitutional law in order to hold that the pre-Booker
SRA fixed sentences. Rather, it is likely that we would need only
interpret the pre-Booker SRA; i.e., a statute. Moreover, the
question of statutory interpretation we would likely need to
address is one that the Supreme Court essentially resolved in
Booker, when it ruled that the SRA contained "provisions that
ma[d]e the Guidelines binding on district judges." 543 U.S. at
233 (opinion of Stevens, J.); see id. at 234 (describing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(b) as "direct[ing] that the [sentencing] court 'shall impose
Tavares, 843 F.3d at 9–11, and, by analogy, in Faust, 853 F.3d at
49–51. Thus, we deem this argument waived.
- 18 -
a sentence of the kind, and within the range' established by the
Guidelines"); id. at 245 (opinion of Breyer, J.) (excising
§ 3553(b) and § 3742(e) in order to "make[] the Guidelines
effectively advisory"); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 820 (2010) ("As enacted, the SRA made the Sentencing
Guidelines binding."); Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85,
100–01 (2007) ("The Booker remedial opinion . . . sever[ed] and
excise[d] the provision of the [federal sentencing] statute that
rendered the Guidelines mandatory."). The Booker Court noted that
"[b]ecause they are binding on judges, we have consistently held
that the Guidelines have the force and effect of laws." 543 U.S.
at 234. In light of this precedent, and in light of the fact that
the lower end of a guidelines range sentence often exceeds what
would have otherwise been the statutory minimum, we find ourselves
quite skeptical concerning the government's reliance on recent
Eleventh Circuit precedent to contend that the mandatory
guidelines "did not alter the statutory boundaries for sentences
set by Congress for the crime." In re Griffin, 823 F.3d 1350,
1355 (11th Cir. 2016). Nor does the fact that the Eleventh Circuit
so concluded mean that a contrary conclusion would be a new rule
of constitutional law. Cf. Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 637–38
(9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the mere fact that there were
dissents in Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), did not
mean that the case established a new rule of constitutional law
- 19 -
because, inter alia, one of the dissents argued that the majority
misinterpreted the statutory sentencing scheme that it held
violated the constitution). In fact, it would not necessarily be
a new rule of constitutional law even if we did disagree on the
constitutional issue. See Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406, 416 n.5
(2004) ("[W]e do not suggest that the mere existence of a dissent
suffices to show that the rule is new."); id. at 423 (Souter, J.,
dissenting) (noting that the majority acknowledges that the "'all
reasonable jurists' . . . standard is objective, so that the
presence of actual disagreement among jurists . . . does not
conclusively establish a rule's novelty"); Wright v. West, 505
U.S. 277, 304 (1992) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment)
(similar).
It is true that neither the SRA nor Booker used in
relevant context the verb "fix." But nothing in Johnson II or
Beckles suggests that "fix" or "fixes" is a term of art, rather
than as a shorthand way of saying that a statutory test, rather
than judicial judgment or discretion, mandates the minimum and
maximum sentences. See Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 894–95; Johnson II,
135 S. Ct. at 2557 (citing United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S.
114, 123 (1979)). In short, we see no lack of reasonableness in
contending that a statute found to "bind[]" in Booker necessarily
"fix[es]" under Johnson II, especially if Moore is able to show
that the different contexts in which Booker and Johnson II reached
- 20 -
their respective holdings (procedural trial rights versus due
process rights) is ultimately immaterial to the inquiry.
Framed in another way, the government's argument turns
on the degree of generality with which we define the rule adopted
in Johnson II. Does one describe the rule as being no more than
the technical holding that the residual clause as employed in the
ACCA is unconstitutionally vague? If so, then arguably only
successive § 2255 motions based on the ACCA's residual clause would
satisfy § 2255(h)(2). Or, does one describe the rule as being
that the text of the residual clause, as employed in the ACCA, is
too vague to provide a standard by which courts must fix sentences?
If so, then one might reasonably conclude that such a rule could
be relied upon directly to dictate the striking of any statute
that so employs the ACCA's residual clause to fix a criminal
sentence.
Both parties appear to agree that the rule is broader
than the technical holding of Johnson II; they just disagree about
exactly how far it extends. This agreement makes sense, given
that Congress in § 2255 used words such as "rule" and "right"
rather than "holding." Congress presumably used these broader
terms because it recognizes that the Supreme Court guides the lower
courts not just with technical holdings but with general rules
that are logically inherent in those holdings, thereby ensuring
less arbitrariness and more consistency in our law. Perhaps for
- 21 -
this reason, the government agreed at oral argument that the rule
in Johnson II would apply to another statute ("ACCA, Jr.") that
mirrored the ACCA but was applied to different underlying crimes.
Although the residual clause in the pre-Booker guidelines is not
quite ACCA, Jr., on one reading of the relevant statutes, it is
not clearly different in any way that would call for anything
beyond a straightforward application of Johnson II. Indeed, if
one takes seriously, as we must, the Court's description of the
pre-Booker guidelines as "mandatory," one might describe the
residual clause of the pre-Booker guidelines as simply the ACCA's
residual clause with a broader reach, in that it fixed increased
minimum and maximum sentences for a broader range of underlying
crimes. These observations underline the critical point: Moore's
§ 2255 motion could succeed even on the government's understanding
of the rule created by Johnson II, if under the SRA the pre-Booker
guidelines fixed sentences.
For this reason, and for the purposes of deciding Moore's
application for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, we are
not sufficiently convinced by the recent decisions of the Fourth
and Sixth Circuits concluding that first § 2255 motions that sought
to apply Johnson II to the pre-Booker guidelines were outside the
statute of limitations for such motions. See United States v.
Brown, No. 16-7056 , 2017 WL 3585073, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 21,
2017); Raybon v. United States, No. 16-2522, 2017 WL 3470389, at
- 22 -
*1 (6th Cir. Aug. 14, 2017). Both courts concluded that the §
2255 motions under consideration had not been filed within one
year of "the date on which the right asserted was initially
recognized by the Supreme Court" and the right asserted had not
"been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review," 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3),
even though the motions had been filed within one year of
Johnson II. See Brown, 2017 WL 3585073, at *5; Raybon, 2017 WL
3470389, at *3. The opinions reasoned that the right the movants
were asserting was not the right recognized in Johnson II because
the Supreme Court had only applied that right to the ACCA, and
because Beckles clarified that Johnson II did not apply to every
provision with the same wording as the ACCA's residual clause.
Brown, 2017 WL 3585073, at *4–5; Raybon, 2017 WL 3470389, at *2–
3. Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion in Beckles, which stated
that the majority opinion "le[ft] open the question" whether
Johnson II applied to the pre-Booker guidelines, 137 S. Ct. at 903
n.4 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment), featured in both
Brown, 2017 WL 3585073, at *2, and Raybon, 2017 WL 3470389, at *2.
But Beckles did not limit Johnson II to its facts. Rather, one
can fairly and easily read Beckles as simply rejecting the
application of the rule of Johnson II to the advisory guidelines
because, as a matter of statutory interpretation, those guidelines
do not fix sentences. What Beckles left open, then, was a question
- 23 -
of statutory interpretation concerning how mandatory the SRA made
the guidelines before Booker. On this framing, the right Moore
seeks to assert is exactly the right recognized by Johnson II.
Turning to what is reasonably viewed as the issue of
statutory interpretation at the heart of Moore's attempt to apply
the rule of Johnson II, the government points to the possibility
of departures under the pre-Booker guidelines, arguing that the
SRA did not fix even minimum sentences as much as the ACCA does.
Departures, however, were limited in scope, and sentencing courts
had little leeway in employing them. See, e.g., United States v.
Louis, 300 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that the defendant
did not qualify for a family ties departure); United States v.
Vasquez, 279 F.3d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that "a district
court may not depart downward on the basis that deportable status
ostensibly carried with it certain adverse collateral penal
consequences"); United States v. Snyder, 136 F.3d 65, 70 (1st Cir.
1998) (holding that disparity between state and federal sentences
could not justify a departure); United States v. Dethlefs, 123
F.3d 44, 49 (1st Cir. 1997) (holding that "multiple defendants
participating in the entry of guilty pleas, without quite a bit
more, cannot constitute the meaningful atypicality that is
required to warrant a departure"); United States v. Andrade, 94
F.3d 9, 14–15 (1st Cir. 1996) (holding that disparity between
sentences for crack and cocaine could not justify a departure);
- 24 -
United States v. Jackson, 30 F.3d 199, 202–03 (1st Cir. 1994)
(holding that the district court's conclusion that a guidelines
sentence was excessive, given the defendant's age, could not
justify a departure); Reid v. United States, No. 03-CR-30031, No.
16-CV-30111, 2017 WL 2221188, at *4 n.2 (D. Mass. May 18, 2017)
(Ponsor, J.) (describing the guidelines prior to Booker as a
"rigidly imposed . . . straitjacket"). Indeed, the Supreme Court
addressed the significance of departures in Booker. The Court
acknowledged that one provision of the SRA
permit[ted] departures from the prescribed
sentencing range in cases in which the judge
"finds that there exists an aggravating or
mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a
degree, not adequately taken into
consideration by the Sentencing Commission in
formulating the guidelines that should result
in a sentence different from that described."
543 U.S. at 234 (opinion of Stevens, J.) (quoting 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(b)(1) (2000)). The Court concluded that § 3553(b)(1) did
not save the mandatory guidelines from unconstitutionality:
At first glance, one might believe that the
ability of a district judge to depart from the
Guidelines means that she is bound only by the
statutory maximum. Were this the case, there
would be no [Sixth Amendment] problem.
Importantly, however, departures are not
available in every case, and in fact are
unavailable in most. In most cases, as a
matter of law, the Commission will have
adequately taken all relevant factors into
account, and no departure will be legally
permissible. In those instances, the judge is
bound to impose a sentence within the
Guidelines range.
- 25 -
Id.; see also Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 497–98 (2011)
(reiterating this reasoning).
There is no suggestion, moreover, that Moore qualified
for a departure at the time of his sentencing hearing. See Moore,
362 F.3d at 132–34 (describing how the district court denied the
government's motion for a downward departure based on substantial
assistance because Moore absconded before sentencing). Thus, it
may be appropriate for the district court to consider whether the
residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline was
void for vagueness only as applied to Moore.
It is true that Beckles declared Johnson II
categorically inapplicable to the post-Booker advisory guidelines.
But that does not mean that the rule established by Johnson II
must always apply to a particular provision in every case or not
at all. Beckles held that a feature shared by all the post-Booker
guidelines--namely, that they are advisory--rendered them
categorically exempt from vagueness challenges. If there is truly
a difference in how mandatory the pre-Booker guidelines were from
case to case, then it may well be necessary to invalidate the
residual clause for those defendants for whom the guidelines fixed
sentences but not for others.
We leave it to the district court to decide in the first
instance if it is appropriate to consider Moore's vagueness
- 26 -
challenge as applied or categorically and, in either event, whether
the pre-Booker guidelines fixed Moore's sentencing range in the
relevant sense that the ACCA fixed sentences.
C.
The government argues, in the alternative, that this
court may deny certification for a successive § 2255 motion on the
ground of procedural default. We disagree.
The government has not cited a single case in which a
court denied certification of a successive § 2255 motion on the
grounds of procedural default. Instead, it has cited two cases
from other circuits holding that a court of appeals may deny
authorization where the motion is untimely. See In re Vassell,
751 F.3d 267, 270–72 (4th Cir. 2014); In re Campbell, 750 F.3d
523, 532 (5th Cir. 2014) (requiring that the motion be clearly
untimely). But see In re McDonald, 514 F.3d 539, 543 (6th Cir.
2008) (adopting the opposite rule).
Whether the Fourth and Fifth Circuits are right on this
point or not, the inquiry required for determining whether a claim
is timely--i.e., comparing the date of the motion and the date of
the Supreme Court opinion it seeks to apply--is nowhere near as
complex as the cause and prejudice inquiry required for assessing
procedural default. To require this court to assess procedural
default in this gatekeeping proceeding would create even more
- 27 -
tension with Congress's instruction that proceedings of this type
be decided quickly.
D.
We have left much work for the district court. That is
by necessity, as the district court is required to redo the very
analysis performed in this opinion before entertaining a
successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(4). The
district court may also have to grapple with an issue that neither
party raised before us: what to do when the transcripts of the
sentencing hearing do not reveal whether the defendant's past
convictions were deemed crimes of violence under the force clause
or under the residual clause. Several courts have recently
concluded that defendants in such cases are entitled to
resentencing as long as the enhancement may have been due to the
residual clause. See, e.g., United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d
677, 682 (4th Cir. 2017); cf. In re Chance, 831 F.3d 1335, 1340
(11th Cir. 2016) (arguing that dicta in an earlier Eleventh Circuit
case was "wrong" where it suggested that a movant arguing that
Johnson II invalidates the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
must "prove whether or not [he] was sentenced under the residual
clause" (citation omitted)). We leave it to the district court to
grapple with this issue in the first instance.
- 28 -
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we certify that Moore's
successive motion satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2).
- 29 -