In United States v. Pickett, No. 17-13476 (Feb. 20,
2019) (Marcus, Dubina, Goldberg), the Court vacated the district court's
grant of a 2255 motion based on Johnson and remanded for reconsideration in
light of Beeman.
The Court remanded because Beeman was issued after
the district court's order, and so the district court did not have an
opportunity to apply Beeman's new standard. Before reaching that conclusion, however, the
Court determined that, in light of the current record and legal landscape, the
movant did not meet his burden to show that the sentencing court more likely
than not relied on the residual clause alone. Although the Court acknowledged that the
Florida battery convictions at issue obviously satisfied the residual clause in
February 2007 -- and the district court's 2255 order included a comment
reflecting that understanding -- it was unclear whether the sentencing court also
relied on the elements clause. That was
so even though there were unpublished opinions saying that the battery
convictions did not categorically satisfy the elements clause, and a contrary
statement in a published opinion was only dicta. Thus, even though the sentencing court would
have easily determined that the convictions qualified under the residual
clause, obviating any need to consider the elements clause, it was not clear what
the sentencing court might have actually thought (if anything) about the
elements clause. Because the Court did
not know what genuinely happened in that regard, the movant could not meet his
burden of proof under Beeman to show that the court more likely than not
relied on the residual clause alone, and the Court remanded for the district
court to make that determination in the first instance.
