Andre Woodson v. USA

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Andre Woodson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-15274

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15274
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-21675-CMA
1:13-cr-20180-CMA-2
ANDRE WOODSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 5, 2017)
Before HULL, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Woodson, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate as time-barred. On appeal,

Case: 16-15274

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Woodson argues, in his pre-Beckles1 brief, that the district court erred in finding
that United States v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), does not apply to the
Sentencing Guidelines’s career-offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), and that
his § 2255 motion was timely filed pursuant to § 2255(f)(3). Woodson further
argues that this Court should hold that his motion was timely based on the
disposition of Beckles and the date of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis v.
United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016).
We review de novo the dismissal of a § 2255 motion as time-barred. Outler
v. United States, 485 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2007). We will not consider
arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Walker v. Jones, 10 F.3d 1569, 1572
(11th Cir. 1994) (“[W]e have repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the district
court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.”
(quotations omitted)).
On October 28, 2013, after Woodson’s guilty plea, the district court
sentenced Woodson under the then-advisory Sentencing Guidelines. The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) establishes a
one-year statute of limitations for filing a § 2255 motion, which runs from the
latest of four possible triggering dates, including “the date on which the right
asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been

1

Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017).
2

Case: 16-15274

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

Page: 3 of 4

newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases
on collateral review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).
In Johnson, the Supreme Court invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act’s
(“ACCA”) residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), holding that it was
unconstitutionally vague because it created uncertainty about (1) how to evaluate
the risks posed by the crime and (2) how much risk it takes to qualify as a violent
felony. 135 S. Ct. at 2557-58. The Supreme Court has confirmed that Johnson
announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral
review. Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1264-65, 1268 (2016).
In United States v. Matchett, we rejected the argument that the virtually
identical career-offender residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2) was unconstitutional as
well, concluding that Johnson’s holding did not apply to the Sentencing
Guidelines. 802 F.3d 1185, 1194-95 (11th Cir. 2015). In Beckles, the Supreme
Court recently affirmed that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to
the same vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause as the ACCA, and,
thus, the residual clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2) is not subject to vagueness challenges.
Beckles, 137 S. Ct. at 897.

3

Case: 16-15274

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

Page: 4 of 4

Because Johnson does not extend to the residual clause of the careeroffender guideline, Woodson cannot rely on that case to render his § 2255 motion,2
filed one year and five months after his conviction became final, as timely filed
under § 2255(f)(3).
AFFIRMED.

2

Woodson’s conviction became final on November 12, 2014, when the 90-day period to
file a petition for a writ of certiorari expired. Woodson filed his § 2255 motion on April 22,
2016.
4