# Brian Williams v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · June 11, 2019 · 927 F.3d 427

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9888701

## Case

- **Full name:** Brian D. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 11, 2019
- **Citations:** 927 F.3d 427
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Merritt
- **Judges:** Moore, Merritt
- **Cited by:** 29 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/9888701

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that § 2244(b)(1)’s prohibition on claims in a second or successive petition that were not MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES 15 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA
- concluding “that § 2244(b)(1) does not apply to federal prisoners . . . seeking relief under § 2255”
- rejecting reading of § 2244(b)(1) that “is an unjustifiable contravention of plain statutory text”

## Opinion text

MERRITT, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I concur in Judge Moore's comprehensive and complex opinion in this case written after and in light of the court's en banc opinion in United States v. Burris , 912 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2019). But at the same time I continue to agree with my dissenting opinion when our panel heard the case initially in 2017. Williams v. United States , 875 F.3d 803 , 809 (6th Cir. 2017). In that dissenting opinion, I concluded that United States v. Anderson , 695 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2012) (now apparently rejected in Burris ), was no longer applicable in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Mathis v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 2243 , 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016).
Perhaps the Armed Career Criminal Act will someday be repealed.
In the last paragraph of my dissenting opinion two years ago, I pointed out what the two justices thought about this law. "Justice Breyer said, the Armed Career Criminal Act creates a 'time-consuming legal tangle.' Mathis , 136 S. Ct. at 2264 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Justice Alito agreed and referred to the analytical process simply as a 'mess.' Id . at 2269 (Alito, J., dissenting)."

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9888701. Public record. Not legal advice.