Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00471/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00471-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

EARNEST D. BATTLE, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-471-WKW

 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Earnest D. Battle (“Battle”) filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence based upon Johnson v. 

United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).

1

 Before the court is the Joint Proposal for 

Proceeding on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion in which the parties agree that Battle is 

entitled to sentencing relief and that he likely is eligible for immediate release. (Doc. 

# 8.) Battle has filed an affidavit waiving his right to be present for a resentencing 

hearing. (Doc. # 9-1.) Upon careful consideration of the Joint Proposal, the record, 

and the governing law, Battle’s motion will be granted, his sentence will be vacated, 

and he will be resentenced.

A jury convicted Battle on one count of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On January 21, 2009, Battle was 

 

1 This is Battle’s first motion under § 2255.

Case 2:16-cv-00471-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 4
2

sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act

(“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on the court’s adoption of the presentence 

investigation report (“PSR”), which indicated that Battle had three prior “violent 

felony” convictions within the meaning of § 924(e)(2). Battle has three prior 

convictions for third-degree burglary under Alabama law, see Ala. Code § 13A-7-

7(a), which by process of elimination are the three felony convictions that were used 

to enhance his sentence under the ACCA.2 The mandatory minimum sentence 

prescribed by the ACCA is 180 months. Without application of the ACCA, Battle’s 

guidelines range is 21 to 27 months, and he is eligible for immediate release. 

In Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the Supreme Court held 

that the ACCA’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. In Welch v. United 

States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), the Supreme Court held that Johnson announced a 

new substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively in cases on 

collateral review. Under Johnson and Welch, it is clear that Battle’s third-degree 

burglary convictions cannot be used as predicate ACCA offenses under 

§ 924(e)(2)(B)’s residual clause. Thus, unless the convictions satisfy another 

definition of “violent felony” under either § 924(e)(2)(B)’s elements clause or 

 

2 The PSR did not indicate which of Battle’s five prior felony convictions served as the 

predicate offenses under the ACCA or under which provision of the ACCA. There were no 

objections to the PSR, and it was adopted in its entirety. 

Case 2:16-cv-00471-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 4
3

enumerated-crimes clause, they cannot be used to enhance Battle’s sentence under 

the ACCA. 

The parties agree that, with the Supreme Court’s striking down of the ACCA’s 

residual clause as a basis for a sentencing enhancement, Battle is entitled to relief 

under Johnson and Welch because third-degree burglary under Alabama law does 

not qualify as an ACCA predicate under either the elements or enumerated-crimes 

clauses. That agreement, at least as confined to an initial § 2255 motion such as 

Battle’s, finds support in Eleventh Circuit precedent. See Mays v. United States, 817 

F.3d 728 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). In Mays, the Eleventh Circuit concluded 

that “[t]he elements clause clearly is inapplicable” to third-degree burglary 

convictions under § 13A-7-7 of the Alabama Code. Id. at 733 n.5. It also reiterated 

its prior holding that under Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), “a 

conviction for third degree burglary cannot qualify as a violent felony under the 

enumerated clause because Alabama Code § 13A-7-7 is an indivisible, non-generic 

statute.” Mays, 817 F.3d at 733 (citing United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334 

(11th Cir. 2014)). Importantly, the Mays court held that Descamps applied 

retroactively “in the first post-conviction context.” Id. at 730.

Descamps was decided after Battle’s conviction and sentence; however, it 

applies retroactively because this is Battle’s first § 2255 motion. Hence, 

§ 924(e)(2)(B)’s enumerated-crimes clause does not apply to Battle’s Alabama

Case 2:16-cv-00471-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 4
4

third-degree burglary convictions, and Battle is not an armed career criminal under 

the ACCA. 

Because Battle no longer has three qualifying felony offenses under the 

ACCA, his sentence enhancement under the ACCA is illegal and warrants habeas 

relief. Battle’s § 2255 motion is due to be granted, and his sentence is due to be 

vacated. Having considered all appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court 

finds that a sentence of time served is a reasonable sentence. Accordingly, Battle’s 

term of imprisonment will be reduced to a “time served” sentence.

An appropriate judgment in this action will be entered, and an amended 

judgment will be entered in the criminal case to reflect a sentence of time served and 

a term of supervised release of three years. 

DONE this 20th day of July, 2016.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00471-WKW-CSC Document 13 Filed 07/20/16 Page 4 of 4