Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03086/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darnell Richmond
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: DARNELL RICHMOND, 

 Movant.

No. 16-3086

(D.C. Nos. 2:11-CV-02582-KHV &

2:09-CR-20069-KHV-1)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Movant Darnell Richmond, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 

motion to recall the mandate that we have construed as a motion for authorization to file a 

second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court to assert a claim for 

relief based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3). Because Movant has made a prima facie showing that he 

satisfies the relevant conditions for authorization under § 2255(h)(2), we grant 

authorization.

Movant received a sentence enhanced under the guideline for career offenders, 

which is triggered by the defendant having “two prior qualifying felony convictions of 

either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense,” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). He 

alleges that least one of his prior convictions qualified for this purpose by virtue of the 

residual clause in the guideline’s definition of a crime of violence, which encompasses 

crimes that “involve[] conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 9, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-3086 Document: 01019616792 Date Filed: 05/09/2016 Page: 1 
2

another,” id. § 4B1.2(a)(2). An identical clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was 

invalidated in Johnson on the ground that it was unconstitutionally vague.

To obtain authorization, Movant must make a prima facie showing that his claim 

meets the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255(h). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); see also 

Case v. Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1028–29 (10th Cir. 2013). A claim may be authorized 

under § 2255(h)(2) if it relies on “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to 

cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 

Johnson announced a new rule of constitutional law that was made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review in Welch v. United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2016 WL 1551144, at *8 

(Apr. 18, 2016). We held in In re Encinias, No. 16–8038, 2016 WL 1719323, at *2 

(10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2016) (per curiam), that second or successive § 2255 motions that rely 

on Johnson to challenge the career–offender guideline qualify for authorization under 

§ 2255(h)(2).

Accordingly, we construe the motion to recall the mandate as a motion for 

authorization and grant Darnell Richmond authorization to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion in district court to raise a claim based on Johnson v. United States.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-3086 Document: 01019616792 Date Filed: 05/09/2016 Page: 2