In Re: Lloyd Curry, No. 16-30712 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-30712 Document: 00513617660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-31092 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, August 1, 2016 Plaintiff–Appellee, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk versus LLOYD E. CURRY, Also Known as Lloyd Ellis Curry, Also Known as Slugger, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:15-CV-968 * * * * * * * * * No. 16-30712 In re: LLOYD E. CURRY, also known as Lloyd Ellis Curry, Movant. Motion for an Order Authorizing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to Consider a Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion Case: 16-30712 Document: 00513617660 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2016 No. 15-31092 No. 16-30712 Before SMITH, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lloyd Curry, federal prisoner # 31442-034, moves for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In a separate case, he moves for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion raising the Johnson claim. IT IS ORDERED that the cases are CONSOLIDATED and that the motion for authorization is DENIED as unnecessary. We agree with the government and Curry that his Louisiana conviction of aggravated flight from an officer no longer qualifies as a predicate offense under the ACCA in light of Johnson. A COA is GRANTED because reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s ruling that Johnson does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, see Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016), and further would debate whether Curry has stated a valid claim of a constitutional deprivation, see Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2557; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2004); 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. 14:108.1(C), (D) (2006). The unopposed motion to vacate the judgment denying § 2255 relief and to remand for the district court to consider the merits of Curry’s Johnson claim in the first instance is GRANTED. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998). This action is VACATED and REMANDED. We express no opinion on what rulings the district court should make on remand. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * 2
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.
