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