Source: http://blog.federaldefendersny.org/category/johnson/page/3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:31:40+00:00

Document:
Today, the Circuit decided Hill adverse to the defendant. It holds that Hobbs Act Robbery is “categorically” a “Crime of Violence” under 18 U.S.C.§ 924(c)(3). It also holds that Johnson does not apply to § 924(c): i.e., it does not “effectively render the ‘risk-of-force clause’” of § 924(c) “void for vagueness.” United States v. Elvin Hill, No. 14-3872-cr (Jacobs, Livingston, and Droney).
Petition to file a Second or Successive 2255 petition is granted by the Circuit –in a Career Offender case based on Johnson and the cert. grant in Beckles — and the district court has discretion to proceed without waiting for the Beckles decision.
Today the Circuit amended its decision in Blow v. United States, No. 16-1530 (Katzmann, chief judge; Wesley and Hall, circuit judges). It added a single line at the end of the opinion to say that the district judge has discretion to proceed on Blow’s 2255 petition and is not required to hold the petition in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, 2016 WL 1029080 (U.S. June 27, 2016).
In United States v. Pawlak, the Sixth Circuit today held that Johnson applies to the Guidelines. You can read a copy of the opinion here.

References: § 924
 § 924
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.