In In re Hammoud, No. 19-12458 (July 23, 2019)
(William Pryor, Jordan, Hull) (per curiam), the Court authorized a successive
2255 motion based on Davis.
The Court granted the application as to a 924(c) conviction
predicated on solicitation to commit murder. The Court found that the
application was properly stated under Davis, not Johnson or Dimaya.
The Court found that Davis announced a new rule of constitutional law
that the Supreme Court has made retroactive. The Court also found that
the application was not barred under In re Baptiste because his earlier
unsuccessful applications were based on Johnson/Dimaya, and Davis
announed new rule. Finally, the Court found that he made a prima facie
showing that his predicate offense may not satisfy the elements clause, as that
was an open question. But don’t get too excited: the Court went out of
its way to add that, in the distirct court, the movant has to satisfy his
burden of proof under Beeman to show that the conviction was based
solely on the residual clause in 924(c)(3)(B).
