Walker v. United States, No. 16-4284 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
In 2016, the Eighth Circuit granted petitioner authorization for a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, in which he claimed that his prior Missouri convictions for burglary of an inhabitable structure no longer qualified him as an armed career criminal. The district court denied relief and this court granted a certificate of appealability.
The court agreed with those circuits that required a movant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the residual clause led the sentencing court to apply the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, and the mere possibility that the residual clause was relied on was insufficient to satisfy the burden. Because whether the residual clause provided the basis for ACCA enhancement was a factual question, the court remanded for the district court to make that determination in the first instance.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Loken and Kelley, Circuit Judges] Habeas Corpus - Armed Career Criminal Act. On appeal from denial of second motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255, following this court's grant of authorization based on claim that Walker's prior Missouri conviction for burglary of an inhabited structure no longer qualified him as an armed career criminal. District court denied relief that burglary qualified a violent felony under the enumerated-offenses clause. On appeal, Walker argues the original sentencing court relied on residual clause. Because the original sentencing court did not specify whether the residual clause or the enumerated-offenses clause provided the basis for the ACCA enhancement, we agree with those circuits that require the movant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the residual clause was relied on; the mere possibility that residual clause was relied on is insufficient to satisfy the burden. Whether the residual clause provided the basis for ACCA enhancement is a factual question. Case is remanded to the district court to determine in the first instance whether Walker has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his successive section 2255 claim relies on Johnson's new rule invalidating the residual clause. Judge Kelly concurs in part and dissents in part.
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.