In re: MICHAEL MATTHEWS, Petitioner In re: DAVID DUPREE, Petitioner In re: SEBASTIAN WILLIAMS, Petitioner In re: LARRY SMITH, Petitioner In re: RUSSELL WAYNE MCNEILL, III, Petitioner
October 9, 2018
Applications Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) for Leave
to File Second or Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motions
M. Skipper Arianna J. Freeman Brett G. Sweitzer Federal
Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania Counsel for Petitioner in No. 16-2027 &
Freese Ronald A. Krauss Federal Defender Office for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania Counsel for Petitioner in No.
Richard Coughlin Julie A. McGrain Federal Defender Office for
the District of New Jersey Counsel for Petitioner in Nos.
16-2273 & 16-2312
B. Freeland Elisa A. Long Federal Defender Office for the
Western District of Pennsylvania Counsel for Petitioner in
William M. McSwain Robert A. Zauzmer Office of United States
Attorney Eastern District of Pennsylvania Counsel for
Respondent in Nos. 16-2027 & 16-2414
J. Freed Stephen R. Cerutti Office of United States Attorney
Middle District of Pennsylvania Ronald Reagan Federal
Building Counsel for Respondent in No. 16-2080
Carpenito Steven G. Sanders, Mark E. Coyne Office of United
States Attorney Counsel for Respondent in Nos. 16-2273 &
W. Brady Tina O. Miller Rebecca R. Haywood Laura S. Irwin
Office of United States Attorney Joseph F. Weis, Jr. U.S.
Courthouse Counsel for Respondent in No. 16-2422
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.
GREENAWAY, JR., CIRCUIT JUDGE.
a consolidated case involving five Petitioners- Michael
Matthews, David Dupree, Sebastian Williams, Larry Smith, and
Russell McNeill, III-each of whom have filed second or
successive habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. §
2255(h)(2) to challenge their sentences for their
convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Each
Petitioner's § 2255 motion argues that §
924(c)(3)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague,
given its textual similarity to the residual clauses found
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2563 (2015), and
Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204, 1223 (2018). In
the time since this case was argued before this Court, the
Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v.
Davis, striking down § 924(c)(3)(B) as
unconstitutionally vague. 139 S.Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). The
parties concede that the petitions at issue are now timely
under Davis, thus precluding the need for our
analysis of the applicability of Johnson and
Dimaya to these petitions. For the following
reasons, we will authorize all of the
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ...