noting that Thomas was the Eleventh Circuit’s “first published opinion on this issue [of whether Descamps applies to a Johnson claim]”
How later courts described this case
- noting that Thomas was the Eleventh Circuit’s “first published opinion on this issue [of whether Descamps applies to a Johnson claim]”
- Rosenbaum and Jill Pryor, JJ., concurring in result
- “We have received over 1,800 requests for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion since Welch was decided.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER:
Charles Clayton seeks permission to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551 , 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Because Mr. Clayton previously filed a § 2255 motion, his new motion must be “certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain ... 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)(2). “The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the re *1256 quirements of this subsection.” Id. § 2244(b)(3)(C). Mr. Clayton was sentenced in 2010 using United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1. This court has held that Johnson does not apply to sentences that were based on USSG § 4B1.1. See United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1196 (11th Cir. 2015). Mr. Clayton has therefore not made “a prima facie showing” that his motion will meet § 2255(h)’s requirements for second or successive § 2255 motions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(D).
APPLICATION DENIED.