Boulanger v. United States, 978 F.3d 24

In 2003 Boulanger robbed an East Rochester, NH pharmacy with a gun and was convicted of pharmacy robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2118), use of a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and drug offenses.
At sentencing the district court applied the ACCA enhancement based on prior New Hampshire convictions for robbery and armed robbery, producing a 460-month sentence.
After the Supreme Court's decisions invalidating ACCA's residual clause (Johnson II) and later § 924(c)'s residual clause (Davis), Boulanger filed a second § 2255 petition arguing (1) his New Hampshire robbery convictions are not ACCA "violent felonies" and (2) pharmacy robbery is not a "crime of violence" under § 924(c).
The district court denied relief (finding the § 924(c) claim untimely and rejecting the remaining claims on the merits); the government waived timeliness objections on appeal so the First Circuit reached the merits.
The First Circuit reviewed de novo, applied the categorical approach and Stokeling's common-law-robbery standard, and affirmed: New Hampshire robbery/armed robbery qualify as ACCA predicates, and pharmacy robbery qualifies as a § 924(c) crime of violence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether New Hampshire robbery/armed robbery are ACCA "violent felonies" under the elements (force) clause	Boulanger: Johnson II nullifies residual clause; NH robbery criminalizes only awareness of force and can be satisfied by non-violent force, so his priors are not ACCA predicates	Government: NH statute codifies common-law robbery; legislative history and Goodrum show the statute requires force sufficient to overcome resistance and thus meets Stokeling's "common-law robbery = violent force" standard	Court: NH robbery and armed robbery categorically satisfy ACCA's elements clause and count as violent felonies
Whether pharmacy robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2118) is a § 924(c) "crime of violence" under the elements clause	Boulanger: The disjunctive "force or violence or intimidation" could cover lesser, non-violent "force" or reckless intimidation, so it need not involve violent force	Government: "Intimidation" includes causing fear of bodily harm; noscitur a sociis and García‑Ortiz show the statute's terms encompass threatened/actual violent force	Court: Pharmacy robbery's minimal conduct necessarily involves violent force and therefore is a § 924(c) crime of violence

Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) ("physical force" includes force sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance; common‑law robbery covered by ACCA)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) ("physical force" means violent force)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
Davis v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (§ 924(c)'s residual clause is unconstitutional)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach for determining predicate offenses)
United States v. García‑Ortiz, 904 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2018) (Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a § 924(c) crime of violence by analyzing statute's terms together)
Goodrum v. State, 455 A.2d 1067 (N.H. 1983) (interpreting NH robbery statute to require more than an unnoticed snatch; relying on legislative history that statute codified common‑law robbery)