Shea v. United States

Summary

The First Circuit held that a § 2255 motion challenging the pre-Booker mandatory Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)) as unconstitutionally vague is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) because *Johnson v. United States* (2015) dictates that the rule against vague laws that fix sentences applies to the mandatory Guidelines when no departure is available. The court reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for consideration of whether the petitioner’s sentence was actually fixed by the residual clause, aligning with the government’s concession on a related § 924(c) claim. The dissent argued that *Johnson* does not clearly extend to the pre-Booker Guidelines, and that the majority improperly created a new right not yet recognized by the Supreme Court.

Holdings

1. Johnson dictates that the pre-Booker mandatory Guidelines' residual clause is unconstitutionally vague when no departure was available, and therefore Shea's petition is timely under § 2255(f)(3) because he asserts the same right newly recognized in Johnson.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Johnson v. United States recognized a new right that applies to the pre-Booker mandatory Sentencing Guidelines' residual clause, such that § 2255(f)(3) reopens the one-year limitations period for a Johnson-based challenge to a career offender enhancement.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded