United States v. Lloyd Curry

667 F. App'x 842
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 1, 2016
Docket15-31092, 16-30712
StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 842 (United States v. Lloyd Curry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Lloyd Curry, 667 F. App'x 842 (5th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Lloyd Curry, federal prisoner # 31442-034, moves for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence un *843 der the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). In a separate case, he moves for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion raising the Johnson claim. IT IS ORDERED that the cases are CONSOLIDATED and that the motion for authorization is DENIED as unnecessary.

We agree with the government and Curry that his Louisiana conviction of aggravated flight from an officer no longer qualifies as a predicate offense under the ACCA in light of Johnson. A COA is GRANTED because reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s ruling that Johnson does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, see Welch v. United States, - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1265, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016), and further would debate whether Curry has stated a valid claim of a constitutional deprivation, see Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2557; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Houser v. Dretke, 395 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2004); 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:108.1(0, (D) (2006). The unopposed motion to vacate the judgment denying § 2255 relief and to remand for the district court to consider the merits of Curry’s Johnson claim in the first instance is GRANTED. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998). This action is VACATED and REMANDED. We express no opinion on what rulings the district court should make on remand.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Whitehead v. Johnson
157 F.3d 384 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Houser v. Dretke
395 F.3d 560 (Fifth Circuit, 2004)
Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Johnson v. United States
576 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 2015)
Welch v. United States
578 U.S. 120 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
667 F. App'x 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lloyd-curry-ca5-2016.