Jean Evans Antoine v. USA, No. 17-14807 (11th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-14807 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14807 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 0:16-cv-61367-DMM; 0:13-cr-60006-DMM-1 JEAN EVANS ANTOINE, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (August 2, 2019) Before WILLIAM PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL, * District Judge. * Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. Case: 17-14807 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jean Antoine, a federal prisoner proceeding with counsel, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, in which he argued that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), invalidated his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction (predicated on a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery offense). The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Johnson applies to § 924(c)(3)(B). While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis, in which it held that § 924(c)(3)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323, 2336 (2019). And we held in a published order that Davis announced “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). In re Hammoud, — F.3d —, No. 19-12458, slip op. at 4–8 (11th Cir. July 23, 2019). Because the district court didn’t have the benefit of these decisions when adjudicating Antoine’s § 2255 motion, we vacate and remand so that the district court may reconsider, in light of these new precedents, whether Antoine is entitled to any § 2255 relief. In addition to the issues the parties have raised up to now, the district court may wish to consider whether it makes sense to permit Antoine to amend his motion in light of Davis. We express no opinion about this or any other issue. 2 Case: 17-14807 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 VACATED AND REMANDED. 3 Page: 3 of 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
