Summary
The Sixth Circuit vacated Lonnie Wayne Bawgus’s amended sentence and remanded with instructions to reinstate his original enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court held that the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Stitt restored Tennessee aggravated burglary convictions as qualifying violent-felony predicates. A concurrence agreed with the judgment but discussed whether additional arguments under Mathis and Johnson should have been considered.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court's reversal of the Sixth Circuit's en banc Stitt decision eliminated the basis for Bawgus's § 2255 relief and required vacatur of his amended sentence.
- Whether Bawgus was entitled to remand for consideration of additional Mathis- and Johnson-based arguments concerning his Tennessee aggravated-burglary convictions.
- Whether the government's alleged failure to respond to a district court briefing order barred it from challenging Bawgus's § 2255 relief.
Holdings
- Because the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's Stitt decision, Bawgus's Tennessee aggravated-burglary convictions again qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA's enumerated-offense clause. The district court therefore could not maintain its grant of § 2255 relief or the resulting amended sentence.
- Bawgus was not entitled to remand because the record showed that he had not raised the additional claims he identified, and any such arguments would be futile in light of Nance's binding treatment of Tennessee aggravated burglary.
- The government's alleged failure to respond to the district court's briefing order did not relieve Bawgus of his burden to prove entitlement to habeas relief.
Key quotations
“But because the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Stitt decision, annulling the foundation for Bawgus’s relief, we VACATE his amended sentence and REMAND with instructions to reinstate the original, enhanced sentence.” (-1-)
“We therefore VACATE Bawgus’s amended sentence and REMAND with instructions to reinstate his ACCA-enhanced sentence of 210 months’ imprisonment with five years’ supervised release.” (-4-)
Factual background
Bawgus was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon and had fourteen prior Tennessee aggravated-burglary convictions and one aggravated-assault conviction. Those convictions resulted in a 210-month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Following Johnson and the Sixth Circuit's then-controlling en banc Stitt decision, the district court vacated the enhancement and resentenced him to 105 months, but the Supreme Court later reversed Stitt.
Procedural history
In 2008, a jury convicted Bawgus of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the district court imposed a 210-month ACCA-enhanced sentence based on Tennessee aggravated-burglary convictions and an aggravated-assault conviction. After Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause and the Sixth Circuit's en banc decision in Stitt held that Tennessee aggravated burglary was not a qualifying violent felony, the district court granted § 2255 relief and resentenced Bawgus to 105 months. While the appeal was held in abeyance, the Supreme Court reversed Stitt, prompting the government to seek vacatur of the amended sentence and reinstatement of the original sentence.
Remand instructions
Vacate Bawgus's amended sentence and remand to the district court with instructions to reinstate the original ACCA-enhanced sentence of 210 months' imprisonment and five years of supervised release.