Humbert v. United States

1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit should have granted COA as to whether petitioner’s Fla. Stat. § 893.13 drug offense qualifies within the ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense” where mens rea is not even an implied element of the definition of a “serious drug offense” in § 924(e) or 4B1.2(b), according to their precedential opinion in United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th. Cir. 2014)? 2. Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari for a Florida Conviction for resisting arrest with violence Fla. Stat. § 843.01 to now consider if it qualifies under the ACCA after its most recent decision in Franklin v. United States, No. 17-8401? 3. Whether the Petitioner is warranted GVR in light of Franklin v. United States?

Petitioner was convicted of various counts related to a drug-trafficking operation and firearm possession. Petitioner was sentenced, among other statutes, under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and rejected Petitioner’s argument that the trial was impermissibly tainted. Petitioner now appeals from an order from the Eleventh Circuit denying Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. Petitioner argues that the Eleventh Circuit inaccurately construes 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and ignores United States Supreme Court precedent regarding interpretation of the ACCA. Petitioner also argues that the Eleventh Circuit’s plain language approach to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ignores a presumption of mens rea found in Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for a writ of certiorari. The case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for consideration in light of the Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ­­­____ (2019) and the judgment is vacated.