IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE: Motions Seeking Collateral Relief on the Basis
of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
1) On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Johnson v. United States,
135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), holding that the "residual clause" in the definition of "violent felony" in
the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U .S.C. § 924( e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally
vague and therefore invalid.
2) On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Welch v. United States, 136
S. Ct. 1257 (2016), holding that Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review.
3) On June 24, 2016, this Court issued an Administrative Order setting forth procedures
and deadlines for the filing of Johnson motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the final memorandum
of law. See IN RE: Motions Seeking Collateral Relief on the Basis of Johnson v. United States,
135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (June 24, 2016).
4) On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the petition for
certiorari in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, which will determine whether Johnson applies
retroactively on collateral review to cases challenging the ''residual clause" in USSG § 4B l .2(a)(2)
of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In Lynch v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498, the Supreme Court
will determine whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), as incorporated into the
Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions governing an alien's removal from the United States,
is unconstitutionally vague. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued stays
in Johnson-based § 2244 applications to file second or successive § 2255 motions challenging
Guidelines enhancements.
5) On August 30, 2016, the Third Circuit issued an Order selecting and consolidating three
lead cases that will determine whether petitioners are entitled to authorization to file second or
successive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging their convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
on the ground that their predicate offenses no longer qualify as "crimes of violence" in light of
Johnson. The Third Circuit stayed those cases pending the Supreme Court's decision in Beckles,
and the Third Circuit's decision in United States v. Galati, C.A. No. 15-1609.
5) In light of the pending actions before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Third Circuit, it
is hereby -. ~
ORDERED on this~ d~ ,of November, 2016, that the Court's June 24, 2016
Administrative Order shall be modified as to the deadline for the filing of a movant' s or petitioner's
final memorandum of law supporting relief, and the Government's response to the motion and
memorandum, for Johnson-based motions seeking:
to invalidate sentences imposed under the career offender provisions of the
Sentencing Guidelines, USSG §§ 4B 1.1, 4B 1.2, and under other Guidelines
provisions, such as § 2K2. l, that employ the term "crime of violence" based on the
argument that Johnson invalidates the "residual clause" in the Guidelines definition
of "crime of violence";
to invalidate certain convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) based on the argument
that Johnson invalidates the "residual clause" in the definition of "crime of
violence" in that statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)); and
to invalidate certain convictions under any statute that incorporates the definition
of "crime of violence" in 18 U .S.C. § 16, on the grounds that Johnson invalidates
the "residual clause" in § l 6(b ).
2
It is further ORDERED that all persons seeking collateral relief based on Johnson and
asserting these challenges are afforded a period of up to 30 days from the date the Supreme Court
or Third Circuit issue opinions in the cases pending before those Courts.
It is further ORDERED that the Government is afforded a period of up to 150 days after
the filing of the movant' s final memorandum of law to file its response to the motion and
memorandum.
It is further ORDERED that the stay imposed in cases involving Johnson motions under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to invalidate sentences imposed under ACCA is LIFTED.
This Order does not modify any other provision of the Court's June 24, 2016
Administrative Order.
BY THE COURT:
Chief Judge, District of Delaware
3
