Adam Joseph Winarske v. United States of America

Summary

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of Adam Winarske’s successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his fifteen-year Armed Career Criminal Act sentence. The court held that Johnson v. United States did not provide a basis for reviewing Winarske’s argument concerning the ACCA’s enumerated-offenses clause, and that Mathis and Descamps were not newly announced retroactive rules for purposes of a successive motion. The court also held that the burglary claim had been presented in Winarske’s prior § 2255 motion.

Holdings

1. Johnson's rule invalidating the ACCA residual clause had no nexus to Winarske's claim, which challenged whether his burglary convictions qualified under the ACCA's separate enumerated-offenses clause.
2. Mathis and Descamps did not announce new rules of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review and therefore could not independently satisfy the successive-motion requirements.
3. Winarske's successive claim was barred because the district court had already rejected the same enumerated-offenses-clause challenge in his first § 2255 proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Winarske's second § 2255 motion satisfied the statutory requirements for a successive motion based on Johnson v. United States.
2. Whether Johnson supplied a new constitutional rule with a nexus to Winarske's claim that his North Dakota burglary convictions did not qualify as ACCA violent felonies under the enumerated-offenses clause.
3. Whether Mathis v. United States or Descamps v. United States supplied a qualifying new rule permitting review of Winarske's enumerated-offenses-clause challenge.
4. Whether Winarske's claim was barred because the district court had already rejected the same enumerated-offenses-clause argument in his first § 2255 motion.

Disposition

affirmed