# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 35 31

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ch arl es W oo ds

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 5, 2 01 5 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 20 , 20 15 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ch arl es W oo ds se ek s au th or iz at io n to fil e a su cc es si ve 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

m ot io n, as se rti ng th e Su pr em e Co ur t es ta bl is he d a ne w r ul e m ad e ret ro act iv e whe n it he ld in Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es th at th e “ res id ua l cl au se ” o f t he Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act (ACCA) is un co ns ti tu ti on al

.

__ U.S.

__ , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51 (2 01 5)

. Thego ve rn m en t joi ns hi s m ot io n. W e gr an t W oo ds a ut ho riz at io n to fil e a su cces si ve

§ 2 25 5 p et it io n.

In Octo be r 20 02 , a jury c o n v i c t ed W oo ds of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm an d a fel on in po ss es si on of am m un it i o n , b o t h in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C § 92 2( g) (1 ), an d a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm wit h an ob li te rat ed se ria l nu m be r, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( k)

. W hi le W o o d s ’s c o n vi ct io n un de r § 92 2( g) (1 )

wou ld typic al ly carr y a m ax im um se nt en ce of te n y ears , W oo ds ha d th ree co nv ic ti on s th at qu al ifi ed as “ vi ol en t fel on ie s” un de r th e ACCA an d w a s t h e r efo re su bjec t to a fif te e n

- ye a r m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). The di st ric t

co ur t s en te nc ed W oo ds to 23 5 m on th s.

One of W oo ds ’s th ree ACCA pr ed ic at e of fen se s was a co nv ic ti on fo r at te m pted bu rg la ry , whi ch at th e ti m e qu al ifi ed as a vi ol en t felo ny un de r th e ACCA’s res id ua l cl au se be cau se it crea te d a “ se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r.” 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). In Jo hn so n, ho wev er, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th e ACCA’s res id ua l cl au se was un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e. 13 5 S. Ct

. at 25 57

. The go ve rn m en t co nc ed es th at un de r Jo hn so n, W oo ds ’s co nv ic ti o n f o r at te m pt ed bu rg la ry is no lo ng er a
pr ed ic at e o ffen se un de r th e ACCA.

W e m ay au th or iz e a se co nd or su cces si ve pe ti ti on un de r § 22 55 if th e pe ti ti on is ba se d on “ a ne w ru le of co ns ti tu ti on al la w, m ad e ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral

rev ie w by th e Su pr em e Co ur t, th at w a s p rev io us ly un av ai la bl e.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (h )(2 ). The pe ti ti on er m us t m ak e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at hi s pe ti ti on fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of § 22 55 (h )(2 ). Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 7 20 F.3 d 72 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). A pr im a faci e sh owi ng is “ si m pl y a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng of po ss ib le m eri t to

warra nt a fu ll er ex pl or at io n by th e di st ric t c o u rt.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Ben ne tt v. Uni te d
St at es , 11 9 F .3d 46 8, 4 69 (7t h C ir. 1 99 7) ).

-2

-Eve ry ci rcu it co nf ro nt ed wit h th e is su e of whe th er th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s pri or h o l di ng s ha ve m ad e Jo hn so n ret ro act iv e fo r pu rp os es of § 22 55 (h )(2 ) ha s t a k e n a di ffer en t ap pr oa ch

. See Pri ce v. Uni te d St at es , 79 5 F.3 d 73 1, 73 4 (7 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (h ol di ng Jo hn so n an no un ced a ne w su bs ta nt iv e ru le an d pr io r Su pr em e Co ur t ho ld in gs m ak e it ret ro act iv e); In re Gies wein
, 80 2 F.3 d 11 43
, 11 48 –4 9 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 15 ) (h ol di ng th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s no t he ld in a cas e or a co m bi na t i o n o f cas es th at th e ru le in Jo hn so n is ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w, a n d t h e r e f or e it ha s no t “ m ad e” Jo hn so n ret ro act iv e); In re Ri ve ro , 79 7 F.3 d 98 6, 98 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 15 ) ( h o l d i n g Su pr em e Co ur t “ m ad e” ne w su bs ta nt iv e ru le s ret ro act iv e in Sch rir o v. Su m m erl in
, 54 2 U.S. 34 8, 35 1 (20 04 ), bu t fin di ng Jo hn so n di d no t ann ou nc e a ne w

su bs ta nt iv e ru le un de r Su m m erl in ); Pak al a v. Uni te d St at es ,

__ F.3 d

__ , No.1 5- 17 99
, 20 15 W L 61 58 15 0, at *1 (1 st Ci r. Oct. 20
, 20 15 ) (p er cu ria m ) (n ot in g th e ci rcu it sp li t, de cl in i n g t o a d d r es s th e is su e, an d fin di ng pe ti ti on er m ad e pr im a faci e sh owi ng of

ret ro act iv it y

wher e g ov ern m en t co nc ed ed ret ro act iv it y ).

I n th is Ci rcu it , we ha ve pr ev io us ly acc ep te d th e go ve rn m en t’s co nc es si o n o f

ret ro act iv it y of a ne w Su pr em e Co ur t ru le as a su ffi ci en t pr im a faci e sh owi ng to al lo w

a se co nd or s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 p et it io n. Mar ti n v. Sy m m es , 7 82 F.3 d 93 9, 94 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ); Jo hn so n, 72 0 F.3 d at 72 1 (“ The go ve rn m en t he re ha s co nc ed ed th at Mi ll er is ret ro act iv e an d t ha t M r. Jo hn so n m ay be en ti tl ed to rel ie f un de r th at cas e, an d we th eref or e co nc lu de th at th ere is a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng he re to warra nt th e di st ric t co ur t's fu rth er exp lo rat io n of the m at te r.”). Thi s is th e ap pr oa ch th e Fi rs t Circ ui t has ta ke n

as well . Pak al a, 20 15 W L 61 58 15 0 a t * 1.

Here, th e Uni te d St at es co nc ed es th at Jo hn so n is ret ro act iv e, an d it joi ns W oo ds ’s m ot io n. Base d on th e go ve rn m en t’s con ces si on , we con cl ud e th at W oo ds ha s m ad e a pr im a faci e sh owi ng th at hi s m ot io n co nt ai ns “ a ne w ru le of co ns ti tu ti on al la w, m ad e ret ro act iv e to cas es o n c o l l a t eral rev ie w b y th e Su pr em e Co ur t, th at was

-3

-pr ev io us ly un av ai l a b l e

. ” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (h )(2 ). The refo re, we gr an t W oo ds

au th or iz at io n t o fi le a su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-