In Solomon v. United States, No. 17-14830 (Jan. 8, 2019) (William Pryor, Grant, Hull) (per curiam), the Court affirmed the denial of a successive 2255 motion to vacate a 924(c) conviction in light of Johnson.
The Court held that, in light of its en banc decision in Ovalles II and its subsequent decision in In re Garrett, the successive 2255 motion did not satisfy the gatekeeping requirements of 2255(h). Because neither Johnson nor Dimaya invalidated the residual clause in 924(c)(3)(B), there was no rule of constitutional law supporting the claim. Moreover, any challenge to the district court's use of the categorical approach (as opposed to a fact-based approach) would also not satisfy 2255(h), because that claim would be statutory rather than constitutional in nature.