{"id":3406,"date":"2017-09-18T22:15:22","date_gmt":"2017-09-19T02:15:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?p=3406"},"modified":"2019-11-06T11:12:06","modified_gmt":"2019-11-06T16:12:06","slug":"mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson","title":{"rendered":"Mandatory Guideline Sentences Subject to Johnson Challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t

Several important decisions have been handed down over the past several weeks involving challenges to mandatory guideline sentences<\/strong>. In 2005 the Supreme Court decided United States v.\u00a0Booker<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0which rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory instead of mandatory.<\/p>\n

If you or a loved one were sentenced before Booker<\/em>, what I am about to discuss is for you. Unfortunately, post Booker<\/em> sentences are not affected by the Supreme Court\u2019s \u201c2015 Johnson<\/em><\/a>\u201d decision because the Court subsequently held in Beckles v. United States<\/em><\/a> that the ADVISORY guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenge.<\/p>\n

FIRST CIRCUIT – MANDATORY GUIDELINE SENTENCES<\/h2>\n

The First Circuit in Moore v. United States<\/em><\/a>, No. 16-1612, granted a federal prisoner authorization to file a \u201csecond\u201d 2255 motion in light of 2015 Johnson<\/em>. 2015 Johnson\u00a0<\/em>declared the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutionally vague.<\/p>\n

Once a federal prisoner has filed a 2255 motion, authorization to file a second 2255 motion must ordinarily be obtained from the court of appeals before a second 2255 will be considered.<\/p>\n

Moore sought authorization to file his second 2255 motion in May 2016. This was shortly before the one year deadline to file based on 2015 Johnson<\/em> claims expired in late June 2016.<\/p>\n

In considering Moore\u2019s motion, the Court utilized the following test:<\/p>\n

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 … the court may deny certification on that ground. But, if the question is close … the court may leave even . . . a purely legal issue for the district court to resolve. 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. 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. Otherwise, the court should grant it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Government opposed authorization primarily on the basis that 2015 Johnson<\/em> did not establish a new rule of constitutional law as applied to mandatory Guideline era sentences. The way the Government sees it, 2015 Johnson<\/em> is limited to the Armed Career Criminal Act. Moore, on the other hand, argued that 2015 Johnson<\/em> established a broad rule with potential for application to things aside from the ACCA, including pre-Booker<\/em> sentences. The First Circuit held that Moore had the better argument.<\/p>\n

There is a split on this issue, though. For instance, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held that federal prisoners challenging pre-Booker<\/em> mandatory guideline\u00a0sentences<\/strong> in light of 2015 Johnson<\/em> cannot file timely 2255 motions. According to these courts, 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3) is not satisfied for this kind of challenge because 2015 Johnson<\/em> did not recognize a new \u201cright\u201d as applied to mandatory era Guideline sentences. Instead, the \u201cright\u201d in 2015 Johnson<\/em> only affects sentences under the ACCA. See<\/em>, United States v. Brown<\/em><\/a>, No 16-7056 (4th Cir. 2017); Raybon v. United States<\/em><\/a>, No. 16-2522 (6th Cir. 2017). This effectively closes the door to 2015 challenges to pre-Booker<\/em> sentences in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Eleventh Circuit (famous for shutting the courthouse doors to federal prisoners) held in In re Griffin<\/em> that the mandatory guidelines \u201cdid not alter the statutory boundaries for sentences set by Congress for the crime.\u201d In re Griffin<\/em><\/a>, 823 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 2016). Thus, I think it is highly likely the Eleventh Circuit will join the Fourth and Sixth in holding that federal prisoners cannot challenge pre-Booker<\/em> sentences in light of 2015 Johnson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the First Circuit granted authorization for Moore to file his second 2255 motion. But here is a big take away, if you were sentenced in the First Circuit before Booker and did not file by July 26, 2016<\/em> for (1) authorization to file a second 2255 (assuming you filed one before) or (2) file a 2255 motion raising 2015 Johnson<\/em> in the district court … any such motion would likely be untimely now.<\/p>\n

THIRD CIRCUIT – MANDATORY GUIDELINE SENTENCES<\/h2>\n

The Third Circuit in In re Hoffner<\/em><\/a>, No. 15-2883 also granted authorization to file a second 2255 motion challenging a pre-Booker<\/em> sentence in light of 2015 Johnson<\/em>. Hoffner filed his request for authorization with the Third Circuit in 2015.<\/p>\n

The Government opposed authorization arguing that 2015 Johnson<\/em> is not \u201cthe rule on which the claim relies<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Third Circuit began its analysis by holding that 2255(h)(2) \u201csupports a permissive and flexible approach to whether a petitioner \u2018relies\u2019 on a qualifying new rule.\u201d Citing to a dissenting opinion from the Fifth Circuit, the court stated:<\/p>\n

a motion \u201crelies\u201d on a qualifying new rule where the rule \u201csubstantiates the movant\u2019s claim.\u201d This is so even if the rule does not \u201cconclusively decide\u201d the claim or if the petitioner needs a \u201cnon-frivolous extension of a qualifying rule.\u201d Section 2255(h)(2) does not require that qualifying new rule be \u201cthe movant\u2019s winning rule,\u201d but \u201conly that the movant rely on such a rule.\u201d It is for the district court to evaluate the merits of the second or successive habeas petition in the first instance. This includes \u201cwhether the invoked new rule should ultimately be extended in the way that the movant proposes\u201d or whether his \u201creliance is misplaced.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Government urged the court to adopt the Eighth Circuit\u2019s test in Donnell v. United States<\/em><\/a>, 826 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2016) for deciding whether 2015 Johnson<\/em> applies to pre-Booker sentences. Donnell<\/em> held that authorization could not be granted because Donnell was seeking an extension of 2015 Johnson<\/em> to pre-Booker<\/em> sentences. The Third Circuit rejected Donnell<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Eighth Circuit\u2019s approach is inconsistent with the text of Section 2255(h)(2), which contains only \u2018three prerequisites,\u2019 and no requirement that we scrutinize a motion to see if it would produce a \u2018second new rule,\u2019\u201d the Court held. Accordingly, authorization to file a second or successive 2255 motion was granted.<\/p>\n

BRANDON’S TWO-CENTS<\/h2>\n

If you filed a 2255 motion or sought authorization to file a successive 2255 in the First or Third Circuits challenging a pre-Booker<\/em> sentence in light of 2015 Johnson,\u00a0<\/em>your claims should get their day in court. But you must have filed for relief by June 26, 2016; otherwise, your motion will be untimely. And I doubt the Sessions DOJ is going to waive the statute of limitations defense.<\/p>\n

If you are in the Fourth, Sixth, or Eighth Circuits you cannot file a timely 2255 motion (first or second) challenging a pre-Booker<\/em> sentence based on 2015 Johnson. BUT if the Supreme Court subsequently holds that 2015 Johnson<\/em> applies to pre-Booker<\/em> mandatory guideline sentences<\/strong>, people in the Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits should THEN be able to file for authorization to file a first or second 2255 based on that new Supreme Court decision. A one year deadline from the date of that Supreme Court decision would apply. And I fully expect the Supreme Court, at some point, to decide whether 2015 Johnson<\/em> applies to pre-Booker<\/em>\u00a0mandatory guideline sentences<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Several important decisions have been handed down over the past several weeks involving challenges to mandatory guideline sentences. In 2005 the Supreme Court decided United States v.\u00a0Booker,\u00a0which rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory instead of mandatory. If you or a loved one were sentenced before Booker, what I am about to discuss is for you. Unfortunately,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3421,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[328],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nOur Attorneys Explain Mandatory Guideline Sentences | 802-444-4357<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Mandatory guideline sentences are subject to attack in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. Learn more here.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Our Attorneys Explain Mandatory Guideline Sentences | 802-444-4357\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Mandatory guideline sentences are subject to attack in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. Learn more here.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Sentencing.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/facebook.com\/attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"www.facebook.com\/attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-09-19T02:15:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-11-06T16:12:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/court-building-2729260_640.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"426\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Brandon Sample\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Our Attorneys Explain Mandatory Guideline Sentences | 802-444-4357\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Mandatory guideline sentences are subject to attack in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. Learn more here.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@attorneysample\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Brandon Sample\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson\",\"name\":\"Our Attorneys Explain Mandatory Guideline Sentences | 802-444-4357\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/court-building-2729260_640.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-09-19T02:15:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-06T16:12:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c\"},\"description\":\"Mandatory guideline sentences are subject to attack in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. Learn more here.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/court-building-2729260_640.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/court-building-2729260_640.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":426,\"caption\":\"mandatory guideline sentences\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mandatory Guideline Sentences Subject to Johnson Challenge\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/\",\"name\":\"Sentencing.net\",\"description\":\"News & Legal Updates By Attorney Brandon Sample\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c\",\"name\":\"Brandon Sample\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Brandon Sample\"},\"description\":\"Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon\u2019s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/brandonsample.com\",\"www.facebook.com\/attorneysample\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/attorneysample\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Our Attorneys Explain Mandatory Guideline Sentences | 802-444-4357","description":"Mandatory guideline sentences are subject to attack in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. Learn more here.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Our Attorneys Explain Mandatory Guideline Sentences | 802-444-4357","og_description":"Mandatory guideline sentences are subject to attack in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. Learn more here.","og_url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson","og_site_name":"Sentencing.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/facebook.com\/attorneysample","article_author":"www.facebook.com\/attorneysample","article_published_time":"2017-09-19T02:15:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-11-06T16:12:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":426,"url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/court-building-2729260_640.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Brandon Sample","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Our Attorneys Explain Mandatory Guideline Sentences | 802-444-4357","twitter_description":"Mandatory guideline sentences are subject to attack in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. Learn more here.","twitter_creator":"@attorneysample","twitter_site":"@attorneysample","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Brandon Sample","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson","url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson","name":"Our Attorneys Explain Mandatory Guideline Sentences | 802-444-4357","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/court-building-2729260_640.jpg","datePublished":"2017-09-19T02:15:22+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-06T16:12:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c"},"description":"Mandatory guideline sentences are subject to attack in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States. Learn more here.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/court-building-2729260_640.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/court-building-2729260_640.jpg","width":640,"height":426,"caption":"mandatory guideline sentences"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/habeas-corpus\/mandatory-guideline-sentences-johnson#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mandatory Guideline Sentences Subject to Johnson Challenge"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/","name":"Sentencing.net","description":"News & Legal Updates By Attorney Brandon Sample","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/a5f0c3a713f6c398da681e9a6f26520c","name":"Brandon Sample","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/500ddb8cb38ac4f20b8f38b401474946?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Brandon Sample"},"description":"Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon\u2019s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).","sameAs":["https:\/\/brandonsample.com","www.facebook.com\/attorneysample","https:\/\/twitter.com\/attorneysample"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3406"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3406\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3421"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}