Escourse-Westbrook v. United States

Whether the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Davis, deciding 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(3)(B)'s definition of "crime of violence" is constitutionally vague, will retroactively apply to cases on review and whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability to help resolve the issue.

Petitioner was convicted of brandishing a firearm during a "crime of violence" in violation of § 924(c). Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 18 USC § 2255. The district court denied the petition and denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA). Petitioner filed an application for a COA with the Eleventh Circuit citing a split among the Circuit on the issue of whether § 924(c)’s definition of “crime of violence” is unconstitutionally vague. The Eleventh Circuit denied a COA stating that Petitioner had failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court arguing that § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and that reasonable jurists could debate the issue. The Supreme Court granted, vacated and remanded for consideration in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct 1204 (2018). The Eleventh Circuit again denied the motion again stating that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Petitioner again appealed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for consideration in light of United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. ___ (2019). In Davis, the court held that the definition of “crime of violence” in § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. VACATED and REMANDED.