Opinion ID: 2829604
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Johnson Claim

Text: Turner argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request to stay his habeas motion pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Ultimately, Johnson held that the residual clause of 18 3 U.S.C. § 924(e)(3)(A) is unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2563; see also § 924(e)(2). The district court denied Turner’s request because the provision at issue in Johnson, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), “is not pertinent here.” R. vol. I at 73. We agree. Turner was convicted under § 924(e)(1) based on three earlier convictions for “serious drug offense[s]” under § 924(e)(2)(A). The district court was correct that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson addressed an issue not relevant to Turner’s conviction. Thus, Turner has failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right and we deny him a COA on this claim.