# In re: Charles Therion Clayton

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · July 18, 2016 · 829 F.3d 1254

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9834921

## Case

- **Full name:** In RE: Charles CLAYTON, Petitioner
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** July 18, 2016
- **Citations:** 829 F.3d 1254; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13133; 2016 WL 3878156
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Martin, Rosenbaum, Pryor
- **Nature of suit:** ORD
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9834921

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that Thomas was the Eleventh Circuit’s “first published opinion on this issue [of whether Descamps applies to a Johnson claim]”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9834921. Public record. Not legal advice.