Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02113/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Jason Rhoads
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

In re: PHILLIP JASON RHOADS, a/k/a 

Jason Waguespack, 

 Movant. 

No. 16-2113 

(D.C. Nos. 1:16-CV-00325-JCH-GBW & 

1:96-CR-00571-JCH-1) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, GORSUCH, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Movant Phillip Jason Rhoads, a federal prisoner proceeding through counsel, 

seeks an order authorizing him to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in 

the district court so he may assert a claim for relief based on Johnson v. United States, 

135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).1

 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 at 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 

 1

 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, Kathleen McGarry is appointed as counsel for 

Phillip Jason Rhoads effective nunc pro tunc to the date the request for authorization to 

file a second or successive § 2255 motion was filed in this court. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 28, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2113 Document: 01019647389 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 1 
2 

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

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, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (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 grant Phillip Jason Rhoads authorization to file a second or 

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

States. We note that it appears Movant has already filed a § 2255 motion raising a 

Johnson claim in district court, which the district court may now consider. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 16-2113 Document: 01019647389 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 2