Aldo Ray Wilson v. United States

Case: 15-14927 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14927
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 4:12-cv-00470-RH-CAS; 4:10-cr-00025-RH-CAS-1
ALDO RAY WILSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 3, 2019)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Aldo Wilson appeals the District Court’s decision denying his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, after a jury convicted him of being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), the
Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”).
Case: 15-14927 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 2 of 3
In his § 2255 motion, Mr. Wilson raised one claim of ineffective assistance
of trial counsel. Mr. Wilson later filed a supplemental § 2255 motion, challenging
his ACCA sentence and relying on Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 133
S. Ct. 2276 (2013). Following issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the
residual clause of the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague, Mr. Wilson also
asserted a Johnson claim in his reply brief.
Following the recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court
rejected both the Descamps claim and the Johnson claim, and we granted a
certificate of appealability. After Mr. Wilson filed his opening brief on appeal, this
Court issued Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2017), which held
that Descamps and Johnson claims were distinct for purposes of determining
timeliness and which clarified the burden of proof for establishing a Johnson claim
in a § 2255 proceeding.
Because the District Court did not have the benefit of our decision in
Beeman when it ruled on Mr. Wilson’s § 2255 motion, we vacate and remand. On
remand, the District Court should decide the timeliness and merits of each claim.
As to the timeliness question, the district court should also consider Mr. Wilson’s
contention that the Government has waived its statute of limitations defense, and in
2
Case: 15-14927 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 3 of 3
doing so, it should consider the entire record, both the record before the district
court and the record on appeal in this Court.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3