Page 1 of 4

Cases 5:2cr38-RH/GRJ and 5:16cv181-RH/GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASES NO. 5:02cr38-RH/CAS

5:16cv181-RH/CAS

CHARLES BYNUM,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION 

The defendant Charles Bynum has moved for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Johnson addressed the 

armed career criminal act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The act applies to a defendant who 

is convicted of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and who has three or more 

prior convictions of a violent felony or serious drug offense. Johnson held 

unconstitutionally vague part of the definition of a violent felony—the part 

sometimes referred to as the “residual clause.” 

Mr. Bynum was convicted of conspiring to possess methamphetamine with 

intent to distribute it. He was not charged with or convicted of possessing a firearm 
Page 2 of 4

Cases 5:2cr38-RH/GRJ and 5:16cv181-RH/GRJ

as a convicted felon. Johnson does not apply to Mr. Bynum’s conviction or 

sentence. He is not entitled to relief.

To be sure, Mr. Bynum was treated as a career offender under United States 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1. A career offender must have at least two 

prior convictions of a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense. The definition 

of a crime of violence was set out in § 4B1.2 and had a residual clause similar to 

the one that Johnson held unconstitutional. But this does not entitle Mr. Bynum to 

relief for two reasons, either of which would be sufficient standing alone to require 

denial of his § 2255 motion.

First, Mr. Bynum was (and is) a career offender based on his two prior drug 

trafficking convictions, not based on any crime of violence. The career-offender 

residual clause had nothing to do with Mr. Bynum’s sentence. 

Second, in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), the Supreme 

Court held that the vagueness principle underlying Johnson does not apply to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. So even if the career-offender residual clause had been a 

basis for Mr. Bynum’s sentence—it was not—Mr. Bynum still would not be 

entitled to relief. 

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the district 

court or court of appeals issues a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has 
Page 3 of 4

Cases 5:2cr38-RH/GRJ and 5:16cv181-RH/GRJ

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 

(2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. 

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a 

§ 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must 

make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right, a demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes 

showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for 

that matter, agree that) the petition should have been 

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 

were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 

further.” 

529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in order to 

obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural grounds, 

a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct 

in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. 

Mr. Bynum has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability. If Mr. Bynum wishes to be heard further on the 

certificate-of-appealability issue, he may move for a certificate of appealability, 

and the issue will be reconsidered de novo. 
Page 4 of 4

Cases 5:2cr38-RH/GRJ and 5:16cv181-RH/GRJ

For these reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF No. 159, is denied.

2. A certificate of appealability is denied.

SO ORDERED on June 18, 2018.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge