American Bar Association
Media Alerts
Media Alerts - United States v. Durham-11th Circuit
Decrease font size
Increase font size
September 16, 2015
  United States v. Durham-11th Circuit
Headline: The Eleventh Circuit holds an appellant may raise an issue or theory in a supplemental brief where the issue or theory is based on a separate intervening Supreme Court decision that overturns binding precedent.

Area of Law: Appellate Review

Issue: Whether the court should permit an appellant to assert a new issue in a supplemental brief where the issue is based on a separate intervening Supreme Court decision that overturned binding precedent.

Brief Summary: A prisoner filed a motion seeking to stay his appeal and to file a supplemental brief due to an intervening Supreme Court decision. The Eleventh Circuit, en banc, granted the prisoner's motion to file a supplemental brief.

Extended Summary: Appellant, Wayne Durham, was found to be an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. ยง 924(e) (the "ACCA"). Durham challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable, but failed to raise any issue involving application of the ACCA to his case. In June 2015, the Supreme Court issued Johnson v. United States, holding that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague.

The Eleventh Circuit, en banc, granted Durham's motion to file a supplemental brief on the constitutionality of the ACCA's residual clause, receding from prior precedent and acknowledging the reasoning of other circuits. The court explained that where there is an intervening Supreme Court decision on an issue that overrules binding precedent and that provides appellant with a new claim or theory, the appellant may file a supplemental or substitute brief to raise the issue or theory in a timely fashion. Since the court granted the motion to file a supplemental brief, the motion to stay was denied as moot.

To view full opinion: http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov...les/201412198.enb.pdf

Argument: Non-Argument Calendar

Panel: Ed Carnes, Chief Judge, Tjoflat, Hull, Marcus, Wilson, William Pryor, Martin, Jordan, Rosenbaum, Julie Carnes, and Jill Pryor, Circuit Judges

Date of Issued Opinion: August 5, 2015

Docket Number: 14-12198 & 14-12807

Decided: Granted in part; denied, as moot, in part

Case Alert Author: Lizbell Lucero, Evelin Mac Clay, Evan Phoenix, and Daniel Villavisanis

Counsel: Margaret Y. Foldes et. al, for Appellant
Amit Agarwal et al, for Appellee

    Posted By: Gary Kravitz @ 09/16/2015 03:37 PM     11th Circuit  

FuseTalk Enterprise Edition - © 1999-2018 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

Discussion Board Usage Agreement

Back to Top