Ralph Curry v. United States

In Johnson v. U.S., the Court invalidated the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act but left undisturbed its two alternative clauses. The first question presented is: Where a sentencing record is silent as to the basis for an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), may a District Court grant a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate the sentence based on the Court’s invalidation of the residual clause in Johnson if (1) movant establishes that the sentencing court “may have” relied on the residual clause, as the Fourth and Ninth Circuits hold; or (2) must movant prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that his sentence depends on the ACCA’s residual clause, as the Third Circuit holds; or (3) must movant prove that it was “more likely than not” that the residual clause led to the enhancement— without relying on post-sentencing caselaw clarifying (confirming) that the sentencing court could not properly have relied on one of the alternative clauses, as the First, Sixth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits hold?1 1 Other petitions presenting variations of this question include: Prutting v. U.S., 18-5398 (pending); Perez v. U.S., 18-5217 (pending); King v. U.S., 17-8280 (pending); Oxner v. U.S., 17-9014 (pending); Robinson v. U.S., 17-8457 (pending); Couchman v. U.S., 17-8480 (pending); Casey v. U.S., 17-1251 (cert. denied June 25, 2018); Rhodes v. U.S., 17-8667 (cert. denied May 29, 2018); Westover v. U.S., 17-7607 (cert. denied April 30, 2018); Snyder v. U.S., 17-7157 (cert. denied April 30, 2018).