Carl Golden v. United States

USCA11 Case: 21-10176 Date Filed: 06/23/2022 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-10176
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
CARL GOLDEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket Nos. 8:20-cv-02846-SCB-SPF,
8:18-cr-00118-SCB-SPF-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-10176 Date Filed: 06/23/2022 Page: 2 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10176
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Golden, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s order denying his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
to vacate his sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm and am-
munition by a felon. We granted a certificate of appealability on
the issue “[w]hether the district court erred in denying Golden’s 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate based solely on its finding that Re-
haif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), does not apply retroac-
tively to initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions.” On appeal, Golden ar-
gues that Rehaif announced a new substantive rule of law, making
it retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. 1
This Court recently concluded that “Rehaif announced a
new rule of substantive law that applies retroactively to . . . initial
§ 2255 motion[s].” Seabrooks v. United States, 32 F.4th 1375, 1383
(11th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). Therefore, the district court erred in
denying Golden’s initial § 2255 motion based on its determination
that Rehaif doesn’t apply retroactively, so we reverse and remand
for the district court to apply Rehaif to Golden’s motion and to de-
cide any other issues that the parties may raise.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
1We review de novo the legal conclusions supporting a district court’s denial
of a § 2255 motion. Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1239 (11th Cir.
2014).