Ross v. United States

1 Citing case

  1. D'Antoni v. United States

    16-cv-398-wmc (W.D. Wis. Jan. 17, 2018)

    His legal argument here is distinct because it specifically relies on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Johnson to buttress his argument that the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague. While the government cites two 2016 decisions from this district court, which concluded that similar successive motions were barred by § 2241(b)(1), Bradley v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 3d 950, 957 (W.D. Wis. 2016) and Ross v. United States, 2016 WL 2642272, at *3 (W.D. Wis. May 6, 2016), neither is binding here. Indeed, to the extent these cases conclude that any prior attack to a career offender enhancement bars a subsequent collateral attack premised on a different legal argument, Price dictates otherwise.