Mann v. United States

Whether the definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).

Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery and to using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence,” in violation of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Petitioner filed a motion to vacate his § 924(c) conviction, arguing that the residual clause of the ACCA was unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), because § 924(c)(3)(B) was “materially indistinguishable” from 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). The district court granted the motion and declared Petitioner innocent of the ACCA offense. An Eleventh Circuit panel held that § 924(c)(3)(B) was not unconstitutional under Johnson, finding material distinctions between the statutes. Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court, in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), held that § 16(b) was unconstitutionally vague and found the distinctions in Ovalles to be immaterial. The Court applied a “categorical approach” in analyzing § 16(b), which also governs § 924(c)(3)(B). The Eleventh Circuit reconvened en banc to decide whether the Court’s ruling on § 16(b) applied to § 924(c)(3)(B). Wanting to avoid a constitutionality question, the court applied a “conduct-based approach,” found that the district court had erred in using the categorical approach, and vacated and remanded with instructions to follow Ovalles. Petitioner asks the Court to resolve the circuit split as to whether § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. The Court granted certiorari and issued summary disposition, with an order to vacate the judgment and remand for proceedings in light of United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. ___ (2019). VACATED and REMANDED.