Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-31092/USCOURTS-ca5-15-31092-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lloyd E. Curry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-31092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

LLOYD E. CURRY, Also Known as Lloyd Ellis Curry, Also Known as Slugger,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:15-CV-968

* * * * * * * * *

No. 16-30712

In re: LLOYD E. CURRY, also known as Lloyd Ellis Curry,

Movant.

Motion for an Order Authorizing

the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

to Consider a Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-31092 Document: 00513617660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2016
No. 15-31092

No. 16-30712

2

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lloyd Curry, federal prisoner # 31442-034, moves for a certificate of 

appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) in light 

of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In a separate case, he 

moves for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion raising the 

Johnson claim. IT IS ORDERED that the cases are CONSOLIDATED and 

that the motion for authorization is DENIED as unnecessary.

We agree with the government and Curry that his Louisiana conviction

of aggravated flight from an officer no longer qualifies as a predicate offense 

under the ACCA in light of Johnson. A COA is GRANTED because reasonable 

jurists would debate the district court’s ruling that Johnson does not apply 

retroactively to cases on collateral review, see Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 

1257, 1265 (2016), and further would debate whether Curry has stated a valid 

claim of a constitutional deprivation, see Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2557; Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th 

Cir. 2004); 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. 14:108.1(C), (D) (2006). The

unopposed motion to vacate the judgment denying § 2255 relief and to remand

for the district court to consider the merits of Curry’s Johnson claim in the first 

instance is GRANTED. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 

1998). This action is VACATED and REMANDED. We express no opinion on 

what rulings the district court should make on remand.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 15-31092 Document: 00513617660 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2016