Opinion ID: 4546604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Davis Claim

Text: Price’s first claim stems from Davis, 139 8S. Ct. 2319. In that case the Supreme Court extended its holdings in Johnson and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), to hold that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause, like the residual clauses in the Armed Career Criminal Act and Case: 20-12133 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 4 of 8 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), is unconstitutionally vague. Davis, 139 8. Ct. at 2324-25, 2336. In doing so, the Court resolved a circuit split on the issue, rejecting the position that the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) should be saved from unconstitutionality by being read to encompass a casespecific, conduct-based approach, rather than a categorical approach. Id. at 2325 & n.2, 2332-33. The Court in Davis emphasized that because there was no “material difference” between the language or scope of § 924(c)(3)(B) and the residual clauses struck down in Johnson and Dimaya, § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutional for the same reasons the residual clauses in those two cases were. Id. at 2326, 2336. In In re Hammoud we resolved several issues about second or successive applications involving proposed Davis claims. 931 F.3d 1032, 1036-37 (11th Cir. 2019). We held that Davis, like Johnson, announced a new rule of constitutional law within the meaning of § 2255(h)(2), because the rule Davis announced was “substantive” since that rule restricted “the class of persons § 924(c) could punish and, thus, the government’s ability to impose punishments on defendants under that statute.” Id. at 1038. We coupled that with the holding that the Davis rule was “new” because it extended Johnson and Dimaya to a new statutory context and its result was not necessarily “dictated by precedent.” Id. We also held that, even though the Supreme Court in Davis did not discuss retroactivity, the retroactivity of Davis’s rule was “necessarily dictated” by the Court’s holding in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1264-65, 1268 (2016), that Johnson’s substantially identical constitutional rule applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. Id. at 1038-39 (quoting Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 662-64, 666 (2001)) (brackets omitted). Case: 20-12133 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 5 of 8 Although Price cites Davis, which announced “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), that alone is not enough. “[T]o make the required prima facie showing under § 2244(b)(3)(C), [Price] ‘also must demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood’” that his Davis claim would succeed. In re Dailey, 949 F.3d 553, 560 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169, 1173 (11th Cir. 2003)); accord In re Cannon, 931 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2019) (‘Even though [the petitioner] cites Davis, we still must determine whether [his] current successive application has made a prima facie showing as to his purported Davis claim.”). Price has not made the required showing. We have granted second or successive applications where the petitioner’s indictment charged him with violating or conspiring to violate § 924(c) and tied that charge to more than one predicate offense. See In re Cannon, 931 F.3d at 1242-45; In re Gomez, 830 F.3d 1225, 1227-28 (11th Cir. 2016). In those cases we had not yet decided whether one of the specified predicate offenses qualified as a crime of violence for Johnson or Davis purposes. See Inre_ Cannon, 931 F.3d at 1243; In re Gomez, 830 at 1227-28. Because the jury in each case returned a general verdict, “we [could] only guess which predicate the jury relied on.” Inre_ Gomez, 830 F.3d at 1228; see In re Cannon, 931 F.3d at 1243. That meant it was possible the jury relied on a predicate offense that was not a crime of violence. See In re Cannon, 931 F.3d at 1243; In re Gomez, 830 F.3d at 1228. For that reason, we held the petitioners in those cases had made prima facie showings that their Johnson or Davis claim would succeed. Price’s case is similar to those cases in some but not all respects. Price’s indictment alleged two predicate offenses for each of his § 924(c) convictions: bank robbery and conspiracy Case: 20-12133 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 6 of 8 to commit bank robbery. We have not yet decided whether one of those offenses, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, is a crime of violence under § 924(c) after Davis. And Price’s jury returned a general verdict on each § 924(c) charge. Those are the similarities between his case and Cannon and Gomez. But Price’s case is different from those two cases in an important way — there is no uncertainty about whether the jury in his case relied on a predicate offense that is a violent crime. See In re Navarro, 931 F.3d 1298, 1303 n.4 (11th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing In re Gomez because, under Navarro’s plea agreement and factual proffer, “there is no uncertainty as to which of the three predicate offenses identified in the indictment underlie Navarro’s § 924(c) conviction”). While Price’s indictment tied each § 924(c) charge to both a bank robbery charge and a conspiracy to commit bank robbery charge, the district court’s jury instructions, in effect, untied them from the conspiracy charge. What the instructions told the jury is that it could find Price guilty of each § 924(c) charge only if it found him guilty of the corresponding bank robbery charge. Which is what the jury did. It found him guilty of the Count 1 bank robbery crime that served as a predicate violent offense for the Count 3 § 924(c) crime. It also found him guilty of the Count 4 bank robbery crime that served as a predicate violent offense for the Count 6 § 924(c) crime. Bank robbery is a crime of violence. See In re Sams, 830 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2016). We not only can, but we must, presume that juries follow their instructions. The presumption that they do is rock solid law enshrined in a host of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. See, e.g., Kansas v. Carr, 136 S.Ct. 633, 645 (2016); Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 799 (2001); Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000); Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. Case: 20-12133 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 7 of 8 200, 206-07 (1987) (referring to “the almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions, which we have applied in many varying contexts.”) (citation omitted); Francis _ v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 324 n.9 (1985) (recognizing “the crucial assumption underlying our constitutional system of trial by jury that jurors carefully follow instructions”); United States v. Zitron, 810 F.3d 1253, 12558 (11th Cir. 2016); Greene v. Upton, 644 F.3d 1145, 1157 (11th Cir. 2011); Puiatti v. McNeil, 626 F.3d 1283, 1314-15 (11th Cir. 2010). Because of that law, we must presume that when the jury found Price guilty of the § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) charges, it followed the court’s instructions and predicated those findings on the two bank robbery charges; the jury necessarily found that Price committed the two robberies. Bank robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause. In re Sams, 830 F.3d at 1239. It follows that Price has failed to make, and cannot make, a prima facie showing that his Davis claim would succeed.