[PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 13 55 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 0: 11 -cv -6 04 20 -WPD, 0: 01 -cr- 06 09 0- WPD-1 HERBERT ROZIER, Peti ti on er - Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 21 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT, an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es . CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: In20 01 , Herb ertRo zi er was co nv ic te d o f di st rib ut in g c rackco cai ne in Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 1 of 23vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a). In cal cu la ti ng hi s p re-Un it edSta te s v . Boo ke r,

54 3 U.S. 2 20 , 12 5 S .Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ), se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge , th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d t he Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 4B 1.1 (Nov . 20 00 ) car eer of fen de r en ha nc em en t b ecau se Ro zi er h ad“ two pri or fel on y co nv ic ti on s o f . . . a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.” One o f th e two pri orfel on y co nv ic ti on s t ha t the co urt fo un d 1
was a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” andth atm ad e Ro zi er a ca reeroff en de r was a Fl or id a fel on y co nv ic ti on for

ba tt ery on a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer i n v io la ti onof F la . Sta t. § 7 84 .07 (2 )(b ). The ca reeroff en de r en ha nc em en t l edto a gu id el in es ran ge of 1 51 2 to 18 8 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Ro zi er o bjec te d t o t he en ha nc em en t, b utth e d is tri ct co urt o ve rru le d t ha t o bjec ti on an d s en te nc edhi m to 15 1 m on th s i n p ris on . Roz ie r ap pe al edhi s s en te nc e, co nt en di ng th athi s p rio r co nv ic ti onforfel on y ba tt ery on a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer was no t a c on vi ct io n fo r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er

As we e xplained in United States v. Chitwood, 676 F.3d 971, 975 (11th Cir. 2012), 1 “[u] nder § 4B 1.2 of the guidelines, any state or f eder al offe nse that is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment can be a crime of violence if it fits withi n one of thre e categ ories.” The fir st categ ory

of crimes, sometimes refe rre d to as “e lements clause ” crimes, has “a s an element the use , attempted use, or threatened useof phy sical for ce a g ainst the person of another .” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a )(1) . The sec ond cate g ory includes the e numerated crimes of “bur g lary of a dwelling , arson, or

extorti on” and those involving the “ use of e xplosives.” I d. § 4B1.2( a)( 2). The third categ ory , sometimes refe rre d to as “re sidual clause” crimes, include s those crimes that “other wise involve[] conduct that pr esents a se rious potential risk of phy sical injury to another.” I d. A per son commits battery on a law e nforc ement off icer if he “ [a] ctually

and 2 intentionally

touches or strike s [a law enfor ceme nt office r] ag ainst the will of the [officer ]; or [i ]nt entionally

cause s bodily

harm to [the office r].” Fla. Stat. §§ 784.03(1) (a) , 784.07(2).

2 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 2 of 23U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ).

In20 02 , we affi rm edRo zi er’s s en te nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Roz ie r, 37 F. App ’x 49 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (tabl e) (u np ub li sh ed ) (Ro zi er I). In reject in g h is arg um en t tha t h is Flo rid a fel on y co nv ic ti on forba tt ery on a law enf or cem en t of fic er d idno t qua li fy

as acri m e o f vi ol en ce, we ex pl ai ne d: “ Altho ug h t he ba tt ery of a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer m ay

be co m m it te d wi th ou t ac tu al vi ol en ce, i n co m m it ti ng th e u nl awfu l t ou ch in g t he off en de r cre at es th e p ot en ti al forvi ol en ce t o th e o ffi cer, a v io le ntres po ns e o n t he off ic er’s p art , anda ri skof h arm to bysta nd ers .” Id . In the no m en cl atur e u se d i n t hi s t y pe of c as e, ou r ho ld in g was th atalt ho ug h R oz ie r’s Flo rid a b at te ry ona la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer c on vi ct io n d id no t qua li fy

as acri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the ele m en ts claus e o f § 4 B1 .2(a )(1 ), it di d qua li fy

as acri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the res idua l cl au se of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) . See e.g ., Syke s v . Uni te d S ta te s, — U.S. —, 13 1 S .Ct. 2 26 7, 2 27 3– 76 (20 11 ) ; Ja m es v. Uni te d S ta te s, 5 50 U.S. 19 2, 1 96 –2 09 , 12 7 S .Ct. 1 58 6, 1 59 1– 98 (20 07 ); Un it ed St at es v. Ch it woo d, 6 76 F.3d97 1, 9 75 –8 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2)
. Two of ou r si st er 3 ci rcu it s l at er re ach edth e sa m e co nc lu si on ab ou t s im il ar o ffen se s i nv ol vi ng ba tt ery In Sy kes and James, the Supreme Court inter prete d the def

inition of “violent felony” 3 under the Armed Car eer

Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). “ In deter mining whe ther a

conviction is a crime of

violence unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, we also rely on case s interpre ting the r esidual clause of the [ACCA] beca use the § 4B 1.2 definition of ‘c rime of violenc e’ a nd ACCA’s definition of ‘violent fe lony ’ ar e substantially the same.” Chitwood, 676 F.3d at 975 n.2 (c itation omitted); see also United States v. Ar cher , 531 F.3d 1347, 1350 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2008). 3 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 3 of 23on a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer, h ol di ng th atth os e o ffen se s qua li fy as § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) cri m es of v io le nc e o r ACCA v io le ntfel on ie s u nd er the res idua l cl au se . See Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 5 59 F.3d11 43 , 11 49 (10 th Cir . 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th atan Okl ah om a co nv ic ti onforba tt ery on a po li ce o ffi cer u nd er a s ta tu te th at cri m in al iz edth e sl ig ht es t t ou ch in g qua li fie d a s a c rime of v io le nc e und er re si du al cl au se of t he care er o ffen de r gu id el in e b ecau se , am on g o th er thi ng s, “ [s ]uch ba tt ery in vo lv es anov ertactag ai ns t the po li ce o ffi cer—th ereb y no t o nl y in it ia ti ng a co nf ro nt at io n, b utris ki ng a se rio us esc al at io n i n v io le nc e”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Dan cy , 64 0 F .3d45 5, 4 69 –7 0 (1 stCir . 20 11 ) (co nc lu di ng th ata Mas sa ch us et ts co nv ic ti on forass au ltan d b at te ry on anoff ic er qua li fie s as a vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e res idua l cl au se of t he ACCA, be cau se it“ ne arl y alwa y s p os es a se rio us ris k o f actua l o r po te nt ia l p hysic al for ce an d t he li ke li ho odof p hysic al in jury” and be cau se th e se rio us ris k o f in jury is h ei gh te ne d b y

th e fac t tha t “ la w enf

or cem en t of fic ers us ua ll y

carry weap on s wh enondu ty”) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. In20 11 , Roz ie r fi le d a28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, or co rrec t h is sen te nc e, cl ai m in g t ha t the sen te nc in g c ou rt h aderre d i n fi nd in g tha t hi s p rio r Fl or id a fel on y

co nv ic ti on forba tt ery on a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer was a cri m e o f vi ol en ce fo r pu rp os es of t he U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1 ca reeroff en de r en ha nc em en t an d tha t thi s C ou rt h aderredinreject in g tha t co nt en ti on when we 4 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 4 of 23affi rm edhi s s en te nc e. He rel ie d o n t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Jo hn so n v .

Uni te d S ta te s, —

U.S. —, 13 0 S .Ct. 1 26 5 (2 01 0) , whi ch th e Co urt i ss ue d n earl y ei gh t years af

te r ou r de ci si on in hi s d ire ctap pe al . In J oh ns on , th e Co urt h el d t ha t Fl or id a’s fel on y

ba tt ery of

fen se is no t a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e ACCA’s el em en ts claus e, 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( i). 13 0 S .Ct. at12 74 . The Co urt, 4 ho wev er, ex pl ic it ly refus edto de ci de whet he r th atoff en se was acri m e o f vi ol en ce un de r th e ACCA’s res idua l cl au se . Id. The di stric t co urt re

jecte d R oz ie r’s cl ai m

an d d is m is se d h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n. It r eas on edth atev enif i t h adbe enerro r to ap pl y th e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t in th e cas e, “ [a]n err orth atwou ldjus ti fy a rev ers al ona di rectap pe al wil l n ot ne ces sa ril y

supp ort a c ol la te ral att ackon a fi na l ju dg m en t” be cau se “ th e que st io n is whethe r th e as se rte d e rro r in vo ke s an om is si on in co ns is te ntwith t he ru di m en ta ry

de m an ds of f

ai r pr oc edur e o r a fu nd am en ta l d efec t wh ic h i nh eren tl y res ul ts in a co m

pl et e m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” The co urt, h owe ve r, gr an te d a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e fo ll owi ng is su e: “ [W] he th er J oh ns on v. Un it ed St at es , 13 0 S .Ct. 1 26 5 (2 01 0) , sh ou ldbe gi ve n re tro act iv e ap pl ic at io n s o t ha t

In United States v. Wil liams, 609 F.3d 1168, 1169–70 (11th Cir. 2010), we held that, 4 based on the Court’s decision in J ohnson, “the fa ct of a conviction for f

elony battery on a law enfor ceme nt office r in Florida , standingalone, no long er satisfies the ‘crime of violence ’ enhanc ement criteria a s defined unde r the [elements cla use] of section 4B 1.2(a) (1) of the sentenc ing guidelines.” 5

Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 5 of 23Ro zi er’s car eer o ffen de r cl as si fic at io n s ho ul d b e el im in at edan d h e sh ou ldbe rese nt en ced .” Co nt rary to o urdi ss en ti ng co ll eag ue ’s sel ect iv e rea di ng , Dis se nt in g Op. at2, the COA do es co ve r th e que st io ns we ad dr es s i n t hi s o pi ni on by ask in g us to co ns id er (1 ) whe th er the Jo hn so n d eci si on is retro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le an d (2 ) if i t i s, wh ethe r Ro zi er’s car eer o ffen de r cl as si fic at io n s ho ul d b e el im in at edin li gh t o f th atde ci si on . See, e.g ., McCo y v. Un it edSta te s, 2 66 F.3d12 45 , 12 48 n.2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (“ Alt ho ug h o urrev ie w is li m it edto th e is su es sp eci fie d i n t he COA, we wil l co ns tru e th e is su e sp eci fic at io n i n l ig htof t he pl ead in gs an d o th er pa rts of the reco rd .” (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). The go ve rn m en t co nc ed es , andwe tak e itas agi ve n, t ha t the Supr em e Co urt’s J oh ns on de ci si on is retro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le . Thatdo es no t, h owe ve r, m ean th atJo hn so n e nt it le s R oz ie r to § 2 25 5 re li ef fro m th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t i n h is cas e, fro m th e res ul ti ng sen te nc e, an d fr om ou r de ci si on affi rm in g t ha t s en te nc e an d re jecti ng hi s cl ai m

on di rectap pe al . At le as t whe re the re h as be enno in te rv en in g c ha ng e in co nt ro ll in g l aw, a cl ai m or i ss ue th atwas d eci de d a ga in sta de fen da nton di rectap pe al m ay no t b e th e b as is for rel ie f in a § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in g. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Ny hu is , 21 1 F .3d13 40 , 13 43 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (“ Onc e a m at te r ha s b een de ci de d a dv ers el y to a de fen da nton di rectap pe al itcan no t b e re- li ti ga te d i n aco ll at eral att ackun de r se ct io n 2 25 5.” 6 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 6 of 23(al te rat io n, ci ta ti on , andqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ); s ee al so Davi s v . Uni te d

St at es , 41 7 U.S. 3 33 , 34 2, 9 4 S .Ct. 2 29 8, 2 30 3 (1 97 4) (“ [E]venth ou gh th e le ga l is su e rai se d i n a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n was de te rm in edag ai ns t the ap pl ic an t o n t he m eri ts on [di rectap pe al ], th e ap pl ic an t m ay ne ve rth el es s b e en ti tl edto [co ll at eral rev ie w on th e le ga l i ss ue ] up on sh owi ng anin te rv en in g c ha ng e in th e law.” (em ph as is ad de d) (al te rat io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ); F ul le r v. Un it edSta te s, 3 98 F.3d 64 4, 6 48 –4 9 (7 th Cir . 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th ata m ov an t co ul d n otrel it ig at e h is in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m in a § 2 25 5 m ot io n b ecau se th e cas e h e rel ie d o n a s anin te rv en in g c ha ng e in law h ad“ no rel ev an ce” t o h is cas e an d g av e th e co urt “ no reas on to di stur b t he law o f th e cas e”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Roa ne , 37 8 F.3 d 3 82 , 39 6 n .7 (4 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ Bec au se th e Defen da nt s h av e n otpo in te d t o an y ch an ge in th e la w th atwarran ts ou r rec on si de rat io n o f th es e cl ai m s, we ag ree wit h t he di stric t co urt tha t the y can no t re li ti ga te th es e is su es .”); Whi te v. Un it ed St at es , 37 1 F .3d90 0, 9 02 (7t h C ir. 2 00 4) (“ In vo ki ng th e d oc tri ne of t he law o f th e cas e, th e co urts , in cl ud in g o urco urt, fo rb ida pr is on er t o re li ti ga te in a co ll at eral pr oc eed in g a n i ss ue th atwas d eci de d o n h is di rectap pe al .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . San in , 25 2 F .3d79 , 85 (2dCir . 20 01 ) (“ The refo re, b ecau se [th e m ov an t’s] arg um en ts were co ns id eredpre vi ou sl y , andbe cau se th ere h as be enno in te rv en in g ch an ge in th e la w ent it li ng [hi m ] to rev is itis su es alr eady ful ly lit ig at ed , we fin d 7 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 7 of 23th at[he ] is pro cedur al ly barre d fr om rai si ng th e is su es pre se nt edin hi s cu rren t § 22 55 pe ti ti on .”); Oli ve r v. Un it edSta te s, 9 0 F .3d17 7, 1 79 –8 0 (6 th Cir . 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th ata m ov an t “ co ul d n ot. . . us e a § 22 55 pe ti ti onto rel it ig at e” a se nt en ci ng gu id el in es is su e th atwas “ fu ll y an d fa irl y

pre se nt edon di rectap pe al ” be cau se th ere h adno t b een “ anin te rv en in g c ha ng e in th e la w”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Pri ch ard , 87 5 F .2d78 9, 7 90 –9 1 (1 0t h C ir. 1 98 9) (“ W e b el ie ve th e o th er two i ss ue s rai se d i n t he m ot io n t o v acat e were f ai rly enco m

pa ss edin [th e m ov an t’s] di rect ap pe al . Abs en t an in te rv en in g c ha ng e in th e la w of acir cu it , is su es di sp os edof o n di rectap pe al ge ne ral ly w il l n otbe co ns id eredon a co ll at eral att ackby a m ot io n pu rs ua ntto § 2 25 5. Th ere i s n o n ew la w app li cab le to [th e m ov an t’s] crim in al co nduc t tha t wo ul d i nu re t o h is be ne fit .” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). The qu es ti on , th en , is whet he r th e Supr em e Co urt’s J oh ns on de ci si on is a ch an ge in th e co nt ro ll in g l aw th atwas app li cab le at t he ti m e o f Ro zi er’s se nt en ci ng an d a t the ti m e we aff irmed hi s s en te nc e. The a ns wer i s n o. We do no t

“ rejo ic e,” Dis se nt in g Op . at 8 , ov er tha t an swe r an y m or e th anou r di ss en ti ng co ll eag ue rejoi ces ov er h is op po rtu ni ty to d is ag ree wi th ou r an swe r. Ins te ad , we arri ve at t ha t an swe r, as we are re qu ire d t o d o, b as edonth e p rece de ntof t hi s C ou rt on di rectap pe al inth is cas e. Wha t the Supr em e Co urt d idin Jo hn so n is ag ree wi th ou r co nc lu si on in 8 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 8 of 23Ro zi er tha t the Flo rid a cri m e o f ba tt ery on a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer i s n ota cri m e of vi ol en ce u nd er the ele m en ts claus e o f U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a )(1 ) (o r it s co un te rp art in 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( i)) . Com pa re J oh ns on , 13 0 S .Ct. at12 68 –7 3 (h ol di ng th atth e Fl or id a fel on y

off en se of b at te ry

is no t a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e ACCA’s el em en ts claus e), wit h R oz ie r I, 37 F. App ’x at 4 99 (tabl e) (“ [T]he ba tt ery of a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer m ay

be co m m it te d wi th ou t ac tu al vi ol en ce . . . .”). An ag reem en t i s n ota di sa gr eem en t. We affirm edRo zi er’s s en te nc e b as edon th e res idua l cl au se of U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) . See Ro zi er I, 3 7 F . App ’x at 4 99 (tabl e) (h ol di ng th at“ in co m m it ti ng th e unl awfu l t ou ch in g t he off en de r cre at es th e po te nt ia l fo r vi ol en ce t o t he off ic er, a v io le ntres po ns e o n t he off ic er’s p art , anda ris k o f ha rm

to bysta nd ers .”). The S up rem e Co urt i n J oh ns on di d n otreac h t he is su e o f whe th er the Flo rid a cri m e o f ba tt ery is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the res idua l cl au se of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) (orit s co un te rp artin 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii )). See J oh ns on , 13 0 S .Ct. at12 74 (ex pl ic it ly refus in g t o a dd res s o r rem an d fo r th e co urt o f ap pe al s t o a dd res s wh ethe r “ Jo hn so n’s 2 00 3 b at te ry co nv ic ti on is a ‘vio le ntfel on y ’ wit hi n t he m ean in g o f th e so -cal le d ‘res idua l cl au se ’ in § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B)( ii )”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Sch ne id er, 6 81 F.3d12 73 , 12 82 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) (“ Jo hn so n d idno t co ns tru e th e res idua l cl au se at a ll , justwhet he r ba tt ery de fin edas t ou ch in g ‘no m at te r ho w sl ig ht
. . . ev ena tap o n t he sh ou ld er’ 9 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 9 of 23ha d a s anele m en t ‘ph y si cal for ce.’”). There ha vi ng be enno ch an ge in co nt ro ll in g

la w si nc e we aff

irmed Ro zi er’s s en te nc e, § 2 25 5 re li ef m ay no t b e g ran te d o n a ba si s t ha t i s i nc on si st en t wi th ou r jud gm en t o n app eal
. 5 W e al so no te , forth e sa ke of c om pl et en es s t ha t the re i s n o m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce h ere. Ro zi er’s s en te nc e wou ldals o s ta ndun de r th e m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , whi ch rem ai ns un affe ct edby Joh ns on . See J oh ns on , 13 0 S .Ct. at12 73 (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e “ m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch th atwe ha ve ap pr ov edpe rm it s a co urt t o d et erm in e whi ch st atut ory ph ras e was th e b as is forth e co nv ic ti on by co ns ul ti ng th e tr ia l re co rd —i nc lu di ng ch arg in g d oc um en ts , pl ea ag reem en ts , tra ns cri pt s o f pl ea co ll oqui es , fin di ng s o f fac t an d c on cl us io ns of l aw fro m a be nc h tri al , andjury in st ru ct io ns an d v erd ic t fo rm s” ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io n om it te d)
. Whe n s en te nc in g R oz ie r, th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d the fin di ng s o f fac t i n To the extent that Roz ier c ontends that the dec ision in Beg ay v. United States, 553 U.S. 5 137, 128 S.Ct . 1581 (2008), r equire s that he be g iven § 2255 re lief fr om our dec ision affirming his sentence , that contention is unpersua sive. The B eg ay case did not involve a Florida battery conviction, an e lement of whic h is purposeful, violent, or a g gressive c onduct. Instead, it involved a DUI

conviction, which doe s not require purposef ul, violent, or ag gressive c onduct. Be g ay , 553 U.S. at 145, 128 S.Ct . at 1586. As the Supreme Court expl ained, DU Istatutes “impose strict liability , criminalizing conduc t in respec t to which the offe nder ne ed not have had any criminal intent at all,” c onduct that nee d not be purposef ul, violent, or ag gressive but c an be mere ly neg lige nt or rec kless. I d. at 145, 128 S.Ct. at 1586–87. I t was for that rea son the Court in Be g ay held that DUI

crimes a re outside the sc ope of the residual c lause. B eca use B eg ay

“does not apply to offense s that are not strict liabilit y , neg lige nce, or rec klessness crimes,” Chitwood, 676 F.3d at 979, that decision is not an interveningchang e in the law a llowing the district c ourt to override our judg ment on direc t appea l denying Rozier § 2255 re lief. 10 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 10 of 23th e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt, i nc lu di ng it s ac co un t o f ho w Roz ie r

co m m it te d t he cri m e o f ba tt ery on a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer, an acco un t tha t was un ch al le ng ed :

Acco rd in g t o t he arre strep ort, o n J anua ry 16 , 19 96 , po li ce of fic ers res po nd edto 48 0 N.W. 2 Way in Po m pano Beac h, re fere nc e a p ro wler . The v ic ti m

de sc rib eda bl ackm al e weari ng a Dol ph in jack etwho ha d b een lo ok in g i nt o the fro ntwin do w of h is res id en ce. The de fen da ntwas o bs erv edwalk in g i n aso ut h b ou nddi rect io n. He was st op pe d andask edif h e h adbe enat t he ab ov e ad dr es s, t o wh ic h he an swe red , “ y es .” A larg e b ul ge was o bs erv edinth e d efen da nt ’s le ft f ro ntpo ck et . Duri ng a pa t d own , th e d efen dantrem ov ed so m ethi ng fro m

hi s ri gh t fr on t p oc ke t. He at te m pt edto co nc eal th e it em an d b eg answi ng in g h is arm s an d fi st . The d efen da ntbe cam e vi ol en t, thr as hi ng hi s arm s v io le nt ly, res is ti ng th e eff orts of t he of fic ers to ha nd cu ff h im . The d efen da ntals o k ic ke d v io le nt ly stri ki ng th e driv er’s d oo r of

th e p ol ic e v eh ic le an d [s ic ] le av in g ade nt . The de fen da ntbro ke free an d b eg anrun ni ng inaneas te rly dir ect io n. A po li ce cani ne tra ck edRo zi er t o atre e. The d efen da ntst ru ck th e d og wit h h is fis t. Fro m

Ro zi er’s ri gh t h an d, p ol ic e ret rie ve d asm al l br own ba gg ie whi ch co nt ai ne d s ix co cai ne roc ks . The ro ck s t es te d po si ti ve . He was re le as edfro m im pr is on m en t o n Oct ob er 4 , 19 98 . W e h av e h el d t ha t, wh ende te rm in in g wh ethe r anoff en se is a vi ol en t fe lo ny (or cri m e o f vi ol en ce) u nd er the m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , a di st ric t co urt ca n rel y on th e fac ts setforth in th e PSI i f th ey are und is pu te d a ndth ereb y de em ed adm it te d. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Ben ne tt , 47 2 F .3d82 5, 8 32 –3 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (h ol di ng th at“ th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in rel y in g o n t he un di sp ut edfact s i n Ben ne tt ’s PSI t o d et erm in e th athi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s wer e v io le ntfel on ie s u nd er

11 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 11 of 23th e ACCA”) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Beck le s, 5 65 F.3d83 2, 8 43 (11 th Cir
.

20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ whe re an am bi gu it y ex is ts an d t he un de rlyin g c on vi ct io n m ay be ex am in ed ,” in ad di ti on to Sh ep ardm at eri al s t he di st ric t co urt “ al so m ay ba se it s fa ctua l fi nd in gs on un di sp ut edst at em en ts fou ndin th e PSI, b ecau se th ey are f actua l fi nd in gs to whi ch th e d efen da ntha s as se nt ed ”). Bas edon th e un di sp ut edfact s b efo re i t, the di st ric t co urt co ul d h av e d et erm in edun de r th e m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch th atRo zi er’s co nv ic ti on forfel on y ba tt ery on a la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cer was a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Whatth e o th er p an el of t hi s C ou rt he ldon di rectap pe al inth is cas e was th atRo zi er’s p rio r co nv ic ti on fitwithi n t he res idua l cl au se , andth e fac ts fou ndby the di st ric t co urt atsen te nc in g fu ll y supp ort th atco nc lu si on . Ourco ll eag ue ’s di ss en ti ng op in io n i s b as edon a fu nd am en ta l
m is un de rs ta nd in g. Itco nt en ds witho utan y supp ort tha t the § 4 B1 .2(a ) en ha nc em en t tha t was ap pl ie d a t s en te nc in g i n t hi s ca se is “ anen ha nc em en t tha t we al l ag ree i s erro r,” Dis se nt in g Op . at 7 ; tha t “ [w]e kn ow [t he ] en ha nc em en t was erro r,” i d.; th at“ [w]e kn ow t ha t the en ha nc em en t o f hi s s en te nc e was erro r,” i d. at 8; an d t ha t we “ al l kno w th e res ul t i s erro r,” i d. at10 . W e d is ag ree wi th th os e as se rti on s. W e h av e n otde ci de d, d o n otall ag ree, an d c ert ai nl y do no t kno w th atth e 12 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 12 of 23ap pl ic at io n o f th e en hanc em en t b y way of t he res idua l cl au se in § 4 B1 .2(a )(2 ) was erro r. One andon ly one co urt h as ev er ad dr es se d t ha t s pe ci fic is su e, an d t ha t was th e p an el of t hi s C ou rt ( co ns is ti ng of t hr ee o th er jud ge s) , whi ch de ci de d o n d ire ct ap pe al th atRo zi er’s co nv ic ti on forba tt ery on a po li ce o ffi cer was a cri m e o f vi ol en ce, n otun de r th e el em en ts claus e o f § 4 B1 .2(a )(1 ) bu t u nd er the res idua l cl au se of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) . There ha s b een no co nt rary deci si on on th atis su e b y an y co urt. The Supr em e Co urt i n J oh ns on sp eci fic al ly andex pr es sl y de cl in edto de ci de th e res idua l cl au se is su e. Jo hn so n, 1 30 S.Ct . at 1 27 4; see Sch ne id er, 6 81 F.3 d a t 1 28 2. Ou r di ss en ti ng co ll eag ue says we fai l t o “ an al y ze wh ethe r Jo hn so n is inco nf li ctwith R oz ie r I.” Dis se nt in g Op . at 6 . To th e co nt rary, w e rec og ni ze th atitis no t an d t ha t the Supr em e Co urt ex pr es sl y de cl in edto ad dr es s t he is su e a pa ne l o f th is Co urt d eci de d i n R oz ie r I. So whatwe do kn ow i s t ha t thi s s pe ci fic is su e was de ci de d a ga in stRo zi er o n d ire ctap pe al an d the re h as be enno in te rv en in g d eci si on to th e co nt rary. Tha t i s t he ba si s upo n wh ic h we m us t d eci de th is cas e u nd er the law, wh ic h we m us t fo ll ow. AFFIRMED. 6

Be cause we dispose of

this appeal on the grounds that we do, w e have no occa sion to 6 decide , and we express no view on, any issue involving limitations i mposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2). 13

Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 13 of 23HILL, Circ ui t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng :

Thi s i s a s im

pl e cas e. Ro zi er’s s en te nc e was en ha nc edun de r th e car eer of fen de r gu id el in e b ecau se he ha d t wo p rio r vi ol en t fe lo ny con vi ct io ns , on e o f whi chwas fo r Fl or id a BOLEO, whi ch at t he ti m e was th ou gh t b y us to qu al ify as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro zi er , 37 Fed . App x. 4 99 (11 Cir . 20 02 ) th (“ Roz ie r I ”) (a ffi rm in g e nh an cem en t o n d ire ctap pe al ). Later , in Jo hn so n , th e Supr em e Co urt m ad e cl ear tha t we wer e wro ng an d t he Flo rid a BOLEO st atut e is no t a c rime of v io le nc e b ecau se itpe rm it s co nv ic ti on fora m ere t ou ch in g o f th e of fic er. Afte r Jo hn so n , Roz ie r fi le d afed eral habe as pe ti ti on un de r § 2 25 5 reque st in g t ha t h e b e res en te nc edwitho utth e err on eo us en ha nc em en t, wh ic h h as hi m pre se nt ly inc arce rat edfar b ey on d wh athi s s en te nc e wou ldha ve be enwitho ut th e en ha nc em en t. Roz ie r’s pe ti ti on arg ue d t ha t Jo hn so n was in co nf li ctwith 1 Roz ie r I be cau se Jo hn so n m ad e cl ear t ha t the Flo rid a BOLEO st atut e u se d t o en ha nc e h is sen te nc e is no t –an d n ev er was – a c rime of v io le nc e an d, t he refo re, he is no t –

an d n ev er was – a c aree r of fen de r. Ro zi er s pe ci fic al ly argu edto th e di st ric t co urt tha t, af

te r Jo hn so n , Flo rid a BOLEO is no t a c rime of v io le nc e u nd er
We know this because the district court ha s said so. Roz ier re ceive d five year s of 1 enhanc ement. 14

Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 14 of 23th e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in e’s el em en ts or res idua l cl au se s.

The di stric t co urt ag reed . It h el d t ha t, af te r Jo hn so n , th e Fl or id a BOLEO st atut e is no t a v al idpre di cat e o ffen se un de r th e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in e. Fu rth erm or e, itag reedwith R oz ie r th at Jo hn so n rep res en te d ach an ge in th e subs ta nt iv e la w go ve rn in g h is sen te nc e su ch th at , if the de ci si on were ap pl ie d retro act iv el y , itwou ldrequi re Ro zi er t o b e res en te nc edwitho utth e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t. The di st ric t co urt was co nc ern ed , ho wev er, ab ou t i t b ei ng th e fi rs t to ho ldth at Jo hn so n sh ou ldbe ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y . It d eci de d t ha t i t s ho ul d n ot , an d c ert ifi edth atqu es ti on – an d t ha t que st io n o nl y – t o u s. No ot he r qu es ti on is be fo re u s. Tha t i s wh y

th is cas e is si m

pl e. The g ov ern m en t h as co nc ed edbo th he re an d e ls ewh ere t ha t Jo hn so n m us t b e ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y . The m ajor it y op in io n 2
reco gn iz es th is co nc es si on . There fo re, we s ho ul d re m an d t hi s ca se forrese nt en ci ng . In st ead , th e m ajor it y

de ci de s t hi s ca se onanis su e th atha s n otbe encert ifi ed to us by the di st ric t co urt an d, fo r th atreas on , has ne ithe r be enbri efedno r arg ue d to us by the pa rti es . Whe n a sk edat o ral arg um en t ab ou t thi s i ss ue – wh ethe r

The Johnson decision is widely reg arde d to be re troac tive. 2 15 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 15 of 23Ro zi er’s en ha nc em en t was affi rm edun de r th e res idua l cl au se an d was no t,

th eref or e, inco nf

li ctwith Jo hn so n – t he go ve rn m en t ad m it te d t ha t i t h adno t rai se d thi s d efen se of R oz ie r’s en ha nc em en t. 3 Hav in g u nd ert ak ento de ci de th is cas e upo n a n i ss ue no t ce rti fie d t o u s, the
m ajor it y th enho ld s tha t the re i s n o c on fli ctbe twee n Jo hn so n an d Roz ie r I wit ho ut on e wor d o f an al y si s. Itba ld ly stat es th atth ere i s n o c on fli ctbe cau se Jo hn so n ev al ua te d t he BOLEO sta tu te un de r th e el emen ts cl au se of t he care er o ffen de r gu id el in e, whi le Roz ie r I was de ci de d u nd er the resi du al cl au se . This is su rp ris in g. It wa s cl ear t o t he di st ric t co urt, an d the go ve rn m en t, an d i t i s cl ear t o m e 4 5 The g overnme nt has waive d this iss ue bef ore the district court and be fore this panel. 3 The Cer tificate of Appea lability

makes that c lear . Ifee l cer tain that, if the petitioner ha d failed to make a n argument to us, we would not now be making it for him. The district cour

t said that Roz ier “ may

well re ceive a time-ser

ved sente nce if

the 4 chang e in law se t forth in [Johnson ] was applied re troac tively to his benefit.” ( citation omitted). The c ertified que stion posit ed that if Johnson wer e re troac tive to Roz ier’s c ase, “ he should be re
sentenc ed.” The g overnme nt has opined more tha n once in this ca se and e lsewher e that the F lorida 5 BO L EO statute does not qua lify as a c rime of violenc e under the ca ree r off ender guideline. For example, in its response to Roz ier’s r equest for bail pendingappea l, the g overnme nt stated, “On J une 22, 2010, in United States v. W illiams , the Eleve nth Circuit citing Johnson , held that a conviction for B attery

on L aw Enf

orce ment Offic er standingalone c ould not serve a s a prior violent felony

under the car eer

offe nder guideline.” ( citations omitt ed). See DE 27. In United States v. Hay es , 409 Fe d. Appx. 277 (11 Cir. Dec. 16 2010) the g overnme nt announce d that it t h has “r e-e valuated its position” that Florida BO L EO is a crime of violence and “now conce des that the conviction for

battery on a law e nforc ement off icer does not constitute a violent fe lony 16 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 16 of 23th at Jo hn so n is in co nf li ctwith Roz ie r I. Jo hn so n ho ld s t ha t the Flo rid a BOLEO st atut e is no t a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the Gui de li ne s b ecau se on e o f it s el em en ts pe rm it s co nv ic ti on fora m ere n on -v io le ntto uc hi ng . The m ajor it y ’s im pl ic it as su m pt io n t ha t the sa me st atut e wit h t he sa me fu nd ame nt al de fe ct m ay no ne th el es s b e res us ci ta te d u nd er the res idua l cl au se as ava li d e nh an cem en t st atut e is m is ta ke n. If the BOLEO sta tu te is no t a c rime of v io le nc e b ecau se on e of it s el em en ts pe rm it s co nv ic ti on witho utany ph y si cal for ce –

for a m ere to uc hi ng – i t fo ll ows th atitcan no t b e a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the res idua l cl au se be cau se itst il l p erm it s co nv ic ti on witho utan y ph y si cal for ce an d, t he refo re, wit ho uta “ se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r.” Roz ie r I do es no t su rv iv e Jo hn so n . 6 It wo ul d app ear tha t the di st ric t co urt, the go ve rn m en t an d I a re n otth e o nl y on es who subs cri be to th is vi ew. In t hi s co urt’s o pi ni on on di rectap pe al in Jo hn so n , th e p an el wrot e, “ If [Fl or id a BOLEO] fit s wi th in th atde sc rip ti on [th e
for pur poses of the A CCA.” In yet another case , the g overnme nt dropped its appea l of the district court’s grant of § 2255 r elief to a defe ndant also enha

nced unde r the F lorida B OL EO statute. Haugabook v . United States , Case. No. 10- 14088-Civ-Gra ham. Rozi er ha s been se rving his enhanc ement – deprived of his liberty – for the two year s since the g overnme nt conce ded its unlawfulne ss. He has thre e year s of enha nceme nt y et to serve . It appea rs to me that we ha

ve alr eady

so held. See H

ayes , 409 Fe d. Appx. at 1 (in 6 Johnson , the Supreme Court “ held that the F lorida crime of batter y on a law e nforc ement off icer is not a qualifying c rime under the ACCA”). 17 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 17 of 23el em en ts claus e], it i s a v io le ntcri m e fo r ACCA p ur po se s; if no t, the n n ot . ” 5 18 F.3 d a t 1 32 0 (e m

ph as is ad de d) . In re ve rs in g t ha t pane l’s s ub se qu en t co nc lu si on th atFlo rid a BOLEO do es sa ti sf y th e el em en ts claus e, th e Supr em e Co urt re fu se d to rem an d fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e st atut e u nd er the res idua l cl au se , sp eci fic al ly ci ti ng th e p an el ’s afo rem en ti on edco nc lu si on th atth e st atut e co ul d n otqu al ify un de r th atclaus e . See Jo hn so n , 13 0 S . Ct. at12 74 . Bu t n ow, the m ajor ity

ass um es th atth ere i s n o c on fli ctbe twee n Jo hn so n an d Roz ie r I be cau se th ey

de al with d iff

eren t cl au se s o f th e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in e. I di sa gr ee. Afte r th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on s i n Begay an d Ch amb er s , we ackno wled ge d t he co nf

li ctbe twee n t he Supr em e Co urt’s n arro win g o f th e res idua l cl au se in th os e cas es with o urpri orex pa ns iv e h ol di ng s o f th e rea ch of t ha t cl au se . Whe n t he op po rtu ni ty aros e, we rev ers edsev eral of o ur pri or ho ld in gs th atst atut es ot he r th anDUI (

Begay ) an d e sc ap e ( Ch amb er s) are c rimes of

vi ol en ce. W e d id

7 For example, in United States v. Arc her , 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 ( 11 Cir. 2008), we 7 t h “extrapolated” from the Begay DUI decision that ca

rry ing a conce aled we apon could no long er qualify as a violent fe lony

in this circuit. We wrote in Gilbert v. United States , 640 F.3d 1293, 1301-02 (11 Cir. 2011) (en ba nc) that “Begay had ef

fec tively overr uled our holdingin Gilbert t h I .” Similarly , in United States v. Harrison , 558 F.3d 1280, 1287 ( 11 Cir. 2009), we r ecognized t h Begay require d us to reexamine Florida’s “f leeingand eluding ” statute, he ld to be a violent felony in United States v. Orisnord, 483 F.3d 1169 ( 11 Cir. 2007). Fina lly , in United States v. t h Lee , 586 F.3d 859 ( 11 Cir. 2011), we r elied upon Begay and Chambers in overrulingour prior th decision in United States v. Taylor , 489 F.3d 1112 ( 11 Cir. 2007) that esca pe is alwa y s a violent t h felony (the Taylor decision had be en vac ated by the Supreme Court a fter it rule d in Chambers ). 18 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 18 of 23no t duc k t he is su e o f whe th er o urpri orho ld in gs affi rm in g e nh an cem en ts un de r

ot he r st atut es were i n c on fli ctwith Begay an d Ch amb er s be cau se th os e cas es de al t wit h d iff eren t s ta tu te s. No r di d we o pi ne th atth e te ach in g o f th os e cas es was irr el ev an t t o t he di ffer en t s ta tu te s u nd er rev ie w, as d oe s t he m ajor ity in th is cas e. On t he co nt rary, w e rec og ni zedth atwe were b ou ndby tho se cas es in reco ns id eri ng th e sc op e o f th e res idua l cl au se . Sim il arl y , if we wer e to an al y ze whe th er Jo hn so n is inco nf li ctwithRoz ie r I

, as t he m ajor it y

fai ls to do , I wou ld th in k t ha t we wo ul d fi nd Begay an d Ch amb er s rel ev an t t o t he is su e o f whe th er the Fl or id a BOLEO st atut e is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the res idua l cl au se . 8 I rel uc tant ly con cl ud e th atou r co urt i s d et erm in edto de ny reli ef t o e ve ry co nf in edhab eas pe ti ti on er wh os e se nt en ce h as be enun la wfu ll y en ha nc edun de r ei th er the care er o ffen de r gu id el in e o r th e arm edcare er cr im in al st atut e. W e h av e rep eat ed ly hel d t ha t p ro cedur al rul es de pr iv e u s o f th e ab il it y to co rrec t an en ha nc em en t tha t we al l ag ree i s erro r be cau se itwas n otau th or iz edby law when im po se d. To th e p et it io ne r, who is servi ng fiv e, te n o r ev enfif te eny ears m or e
We have he ld that under Begay , as limited by United States v. Sykes , 131 S. Ct . 2267 8 (2011), of

fense s fall within the residual c lause if, in the or dinary case , “they

cate g orica lly

pose a serious risk of phy sical injury that is similar to the risk posed by one of the enum erated c rimes . ” United States v. Chitwood , 676 F.3d 971, 979 ( 11 Cir. 2012) (empha sis added). B attery by a t h mere touchingdoes not, in the ordinar y case , result in a degree of risk similar to any of the enumer ated c rimes in the ca ree r off ender guideline (burg lary

of a dw elling, a

rson, extortion, or the use of e x plosives). 19

Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 19 of 23th anhe wou ldbe in th e ab se nc e o f th e erro r, we sa y , “ So rry . W e kno w y ou r

en ha nc em en t was erro r, bu t the re i s n ot hi ng we cando . Our h an ds are t ie d b y pr oc edur al rul es . W e can no t fi x t hi s.” W e d o t hi s i n t he nam e o f “ fin al ity .” W e sa y we are p ro te ct in g t he in te gr ity of th e GreatWrit ; we ca nn otgo ab ou t co rrec ti ng ol d m is ta ke s o r no co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce wi ll ev er b e fi na l. Of co ur se , fin al it y

is de si rab le . There was ati m e whe n t he re ap pe aredto be no fin al it y

in ou r habe as pro cedur es . The ru le s we a do pt edto in tro du ce s om e fin al ity in to th e h ab eas pro ces s wer e lo ng ov erdue . Bu t fi na li ty m

us t n otbe ou r hi gh es t g oa l. The GreatWritis en sh rin edin ou r Co ns ti tu ti onbe cau se we be li ev e th atno on e m ay be de pr iv edof l ife , li be rty, or pr op erty by the go ve rn m en t i n v io la ti onof l aw. If a p et it io ne r can sh ow t ha t h e is il le ga ll y in carc erat ed , he i s en ti tl edto rel eas e. Fai rn es s re qu ire s i t. J us ti ce i s t he ul ti m at e g oa l i n the gra ntof t he Writ
. Bu t we h av e in crea si ng ly com e to de fin e wha t i s “ jus t” by wha t o ur pr oc edur al rul es pe rm it . Recen tl y , th e St at e o f Alaba m a, a p an el of t hi s co urt, an d two jus ti ces of t he Supr em e Co urt ag reedth atanAlab am a p ris on er co ul d b e p utto de ath a s t he res ul t o f hi s l awy ers – wh o aba nd on edhi s ca se – h av in g m is se d a

20 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 20 of 23fil in g d ead li ne . Our co urt h el d t ha t we wo ul d n ot– co ul d n ot– co ns id er the m eri ts

of hi s cl ai m du e to th is pro cedur al de fau lt
. I ag ree wi th th e m em

be r of th is pa ne l wh o d is se nt edin th e Alaba m a cas e, writ in g t ha t i n c ert ai n c as es pro cedur e m us t “ y ie ldto th e im

pe rat iv e o f co rrec ti ng a fu nd am en ta ll y

un jus t [s en te nc e].” Seve n m em be rs of t he Supr em e Co urt ag reed wit h t ha t v ie w, rev ers in g o urco urt. Se e Ma pl es v. Th oma s , 13 2 S . Ct. 9 12 (20 12 ). In Map les , th ere was no cert ai nt y th atth ere h adbe enerro r in th e co nv ic ti on orsen te nc e. InRo zi er’s cas e, ho wev er, the re i s ce rta in ty. W e kno w th atth e en ha nc em en t o f hi s s en te nc e was erro r. I m us t co nf es s I a m be wil de redth atbo th th e Uni te d S ta te s, thr ou gh it s Dep artm en t o f Ju st ic e, an d t hi s co urt ap pe ar t o re joi ce wh enacce ss to co ns ti tu ti on al pro te ct io n fo r th e co rrec ti onof a dm it te d a ndhi gh ly prejud ic ia l erro r is fou ndto be bl oc ke d b y un m etpro cedur al “ sa feg ua rd s.” Onth e co nt rary, I sh ou ldha ve th ou gh t tha t the co rr ect io n of su cherro r wou ldbe cel eb rat edby all swo rnto up ho ldth e Co ns ti tu ti on . As is in sc rib edin th e o ffi ce ro tu nd a o f th e Att orne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s, “ The Uni te d S ta te s wi ns it s p oi ntwhen ev er jus ti ce i s d on e it s ci ti zen s i n t he co urts .” Som e in th e Dep art m en t o f Ju st ic e se em 9 This saying is a scribed to Attorne y Gene ral F rede rick Willi am L ehman who, in 9 repr esentingthe United States g overnme nt in the Supreme Court, would, when he believed it 21 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 21 of 23to be li ev e th atth e in sc rip ti on read s, “ Ju st ic e is do ne when th e Uni te d S ta te s wi ns .”

Cl earl y jus ti ce i s n otth e in te nd edbe ne fic ia ry of t he se pro cedur al sa feg ua rd s. Onth e co ntrary, the s afeg ua rd s ar e d es ig ne d t o p ro te ctfin al it y . If th es e n ew ru le s re qu ire th atfin al it y tru m p ju st ic e, th enpe rh ap s, as on e m em be r of th is pa ne l h as op in edels ewh ere, the y are u nc on st itut io na l. Inan y ev en t, I cann ot joi n i n thi s el ev at io n o f fo rm ov er s ub st an ce; of f

in al ity ov er fa irn es s. Due pro ces s i s t he de fin in g v irtue of o ursyste m of c riminal jus ti ce. Bu t we sh ou ldaskou rs el ve s wh y . Is i t b ecau se itach ie ve s fi na li ty? Or i s i t b ecau se we be li ev e th at , m or e o fte n t ha n n ot , we wil l re ach a co rrec t re su ltwher e certa in pr oc es s i s due th e cri m in al de fen da nt . The g oa l i s a c orrectres ul t –no t s im pl y th e pr ov is io n o f pr oc es s. To be su re, we d o n otgu aran te e a co rrec t re su lt . Butwher e al l kn owth e re su lt

is err or , to adhe re t o t he pro ces s as th ou gh itwere the en d g oa l is un fai r in th e p ur es t s en se of t he word
. Thi s i s es pe ci al ly true wher e th e p et it io ne r is in fed eral cu st od y , no t s ta te cu st od y . W e sa feg ua rdfin al ity forst at e co urt co nv ic ti on s o utof r es pe ctfor th e du al pri nc ip le s o f co m ity an d fe de ral is m . Neithe r of th es e co ns id erat io ns is du e th e err on eo us ly sen te nc edfed eral pri so ne r.
called f or, conf ess judg ment and admit that the g overnme nt had bee n wrongall alongeven when supported by

a lower court’s prior dec ision. 22 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 22 of 23It s eem s t o m e th atth e m ajor it y ha s s tri ve n m ig ht il y

to av oi d g ran ti ng th e writto so m eo ne cu rren tl y de pr iv edof l ib erty

in vi ol at io n o f la w. I am weary of ou r co urt’s re le nt le ss effo rt t o p utm or e an d m or e p ro cedur al an ge ls on th e h eadof th e h ab eas pi n. Atso m e p oi nt , we m us t co nc ed e, as th e Sev en th Cir cu itdi d rece nt ly, th atco m

m on sen se an d b as ic fai rn es s re qu ire th atwe co rrec t the se un la wfu ll y

en ha nc edsen te nc es . Se e Na rv ae z v. Un it ed

St at es , 67 4 F .3d62 1 (7 th Ci r. 20 11 ). I res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

23 Case: 11-13557 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 23 of 23