Bachiller v. United States

(1) Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), applies retroactively to a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion? (2) Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3) is unconstitutionally vague pursuant to Johnson? (3) Whether the Eleventh Circuit's rule that reasonable jurists could not debate an issue foreclosed by binding circuit precedent?

Among other crimes, Petitioner was convicted of knowingly carrying and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime, violating 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A). Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on appeal and his 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion was denied. In a subsequent §2255 motion, the district court ruled that Petitioner’s claim implicated Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), being predicated on a Hobbs Act conspiracy/robbery. The district court denied the motion and both it and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability. Petitioner argues that in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), the Supreme Court applied the categorical approach to the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. §16(b) and ruled it was unconstitutionally vague. Petitioner argues that both residual clauses of §16(b) and 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3) are identical. Petitioner also argues the Eleventh Circuit rejected the categorical approach for §924(c)(3) in Ovalles v. United States, 905 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018). Petitioner asks the Supreme Court to hold his petition until it decides whether to grant the petition in Ovalles. The Court granted review and entered a judgment vacating and remanding the case for consideration in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). VACATED and REMANDED.