In Re: William Hunt, No. 16-14756 (11th Cir. 2016)Annotate this Case
Petitioner seeks to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States. Petitioner claims his conviction for using a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c), is invalid because it arose under that section's residual clause, which is similar to the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Petitioner also asserts that his advisory Guidelines sentence violates Johnson because it was enhanced pursuant to the residual clause of the career offender provision of the Guidelines. The court concluded that In re Hines forecloses petitioner's section 924(c) claim, and United States v. Matchett forecloses petitioner's Guidelines-based claim. The court noted that the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Beckles v. United States, which raises the question of whether Johnson applies to the Guidelines. The court denied the application.