United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division
OWEN BOWDRE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court on petitioner Bruce Henry's
“Motion for Sentence Reduction and Vacatur Pursuant to
§ 2255(f)(3)-Johnson Claim.” (Doc. 1).
motion, Mr. Henry claims that this court should vacate his
sentence based on the United States Supreme Court's
decision in United States v. Johnson, 135 S.Ct. 2551
(2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down
the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)
as unconstitutionally vague. Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at
2557. Mr. Henry urges this court to apply Johnson to
his case even though he was not sentenced under the ACCA. For
the following reasons, the court refuses to extend
Johnson beyond its holding and finds that Mr.
Henry's motion to vacate under § 2255(f)(3) is due
to be DENIED.
to a plea agreement with the Government, Mr. Henry pled
guilty to possession of child pornography pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) on February 26, 2013. The court
sentenced him that same day to seventy months imprisonment,
and Mr. Henty did not appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. (Docs.
14 & 21 in 4:12-cr-550-KOB-SGC).
Henry filed his motion to vacate almost three years later on
June 21, 2016, alleging that it is timely under §
2255(f)(3) because he filed it within one year of the
Johnson decision. (Doc. 1). The court ordered Mr.
Henry to show cause in writing why the court should not deny
his motion to vacate because the holding and reasoning in
Johnson does not apply to the facts of his case.
(Doc. 2). Mr. Henry timely filed his response to the Show
Cause Order. (Doc. 3).Discussion The Supreme Court's
holding in Johnson does not apply to Mr. Henry's
case because the district court did not sentence Mr. Henry
under the residual clause of the ACCA that the Supreme Court
held was unconstitutionally vague. Mr. Henry responded to the
Show Cause Order but did not specifically address why or how
Johnson applied to his case. Instead, he submitted
many pages of discussion of Johnson in general and
other courts' interpretations of whether it applies to
the Sentencing Guidelines. Mr. Henry's discussion
regarding whether Johnson applies to the Sentencing
Guidelines is inapposite because the Supreme Court held in
Beckles v. United States that the holding in
Johnson does not extend to collateral challenges to
federal sentences enhanced under § 4B1.2(a)(2)'s
residual clause under the Sentencing Guidelines. 137 S.Ct.
886, 895 (2017). Moreover, the court did not enhance Mr.
Henry's sentence as a career offender under that residual
clause. And the cases Mr. Henry cites have nothing to do with
a defendant like Mr. Henry-one who pled guilty to
possession of child pornography who was not
sentenced under the ACCA.
Mr. Henry wants this court to extend Johnson's
holding to his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §
2252A(a)(5)(B) for possession of child pornography because
“the record clearly reveals that Henry never brought
any harm to any individuals.” He also argues that the
court should apply Johnson to 18 U.S.C. §
3156(a)(4)(B), which defines a “crime of
violence” for purposes of release and detention pending
trial or sentencing. However, Mr. Henry gives no explanation
how the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson
applies in any way to either child pornography cases, release
or detention decisions before trial or sentencing, or his
conviction and sentence. Without Johnson, Mr. Henry
has no ground upon which to file a timely motion to vacate
under § 2255.
for Mr. Henry, the Supreme Court's holding in
Johnson does not extend to Mr. Henry's
circumstances because the court did not sentence him under
the ACCA. In fact, the court does not see how the reasoning
in Johnson could apply in any way to Mr.
Henry's conviction or sentence. This court has no
authority to stretch the reasoning in Johnson far
beyond what the Supreme Court specifically held.
the court finds that Mr. Henry has no ground upon which to
file a timely motion to vacate because Johnson does
not apply to his case. Therefore, his motion to vacate
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) is due to be denied.
court will enter a separate Order.
 Mr. Henry filed a “Motion for
Judicial Notice in Light of Seventh Circuit Ruling of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) as Void for Vagueness in Conjunction
With a Decision Pending by This Court” almost four
months after his response to the Show Cause Order. (Doc. 5).
This court is not bound by a Seventh Circuit decision,
especially one that has no bearing on his case, ...