Court Opinion

ID: 9370430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 17:00:29.027787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.646828
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13302    Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 02/13/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-13302
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       CHARLES MOODY,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-21649-DMM
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13302     Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/13/2023    Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                21-13302

       Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Charles Moody, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his
       28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence that was enhanced
       under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C.
       § 924(e). We granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to re-
       view whether Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), ren-
       dered Moody’s ACCA-enhanced sentence unconstitutional. The
       district court found that, even after Johnson and more recent legal
       developments, Moody still has at least three prior convictions that
       qualify for the enhancement. But the district court did not apply
       our decision in Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir.
       2017), which established what a movant needed to show to succeed
       on a Johnson claim in a § 2255 motion. Because Beeman calls for a
       factual inquiry into the basis for the original sentence, about which
       the court has made no findings, we vacate and remand for the dis-
       trict court to apply Beeman in the first instance.
             VACATED AND REMANDED.