Estremera v. United States, 944 F.3d 452

In 2006 Estremera was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm; the district court applied the ACCA's 15‑year mandatory minimum based on three prior convictions.
The prior convictions identified were: first‑degree robbery (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‑134(a)(3)), second‑degree robbery (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‑135(a)(1)), and a drug conspiracy.
On direct appeal the sentence was affirmed. After Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause, Estremera brought a § 2255 motion arguing his Connecticut robbery convictions do not categorically qualify as ACCA violent‑felony predicates under the force clause.
The district court denied relief; Estremera appealed and the Second Circuit granted a certificate of appealability.
The Second Circuit relied on its precedent in Shabazz holding that Connecticut simple robbery (§ 53a‑133) is categorically a violent felony, and observed that the statutes under which Estremera was convicted incorporate § 53a‑133.
The court rejected Estremera’s attempt to rely on Stokeling to narrow the class of qualifying robbery offenses and affirmed the denial of § 2255 relief.

Issue	Estremera's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Whether Estremera’s Connecticut first‑ and second‑degree robbery convictions categorically qualify as ACCA "violent felonies" under the force clause	CT robbery statutes can encompass non‑violent conduct and thus do not categorically qualify	CT first‑ and second‑degree robbery require commission of simple robbery (§ 53a‑133), which is categorically violent	Affirmed: both convictions are categorically violent felonies under the ACCA force clause
Whether Stokeling narrows the class of state robbery offenses that qualify such that Connecticut robbery no longer qualifies	Stokeling’s reasoning limits qualifying robberies and excludes some CT robbery applications	Stokeling is consistent with Shabazz; no Connecticut decisions show § 53a‑133 reaches non‑violent conduct	Rejected: Stokeling does not undermine Shabazz; no realistic probability CT law reaches non‑violent conduct

Shabazz v. United States, 912 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2019) (held Connecticut simple robbery § 53a‑133 is categorically an ACCA violent felony)
Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) (Supreme Court discussion of robbery involving physical confrontation supports categorical violent‑felony treatment)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (articulated the categorical approach for determining ACCA predicates)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (explained modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
United States v. Beardsley, 691 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for sentence‑enhancement legal questions)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (sources courts may consult under the modified categorical approach)
United States v. Bordeaux, 886 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2018) (held a subdivision of Connecticut first‑degree robbery qualifies as a violent felony)