458 F.Supp.3d 111
D.P.R.2020Background
- Petitioner Jose Rojas‑Tapia pleaded guilty in consolidated federal cases for two armed postal‑office robberies (events Aug 10 and Sep 2, 1999) and related firearms offenses; he was sentenced to a total of 682 months.
- He had prior convictions including a 1997 Puerto Rico conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine (maximum >10 years), two armed carjackings, and 1998 convictions for murder and attempted murder.
- In a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, Rojas‑Tapia argued Johnson v. United States rendered (a) the ACCA residual clause invalid so he no longer qualified as an Armed Career Criminal, (b) § 924(c)’s residual clause invalidated his firearms convictions, and (c) the pre‑Booker Career Offender guideline residual clause invalidated his guideline enhancement.
- The government responded that several prior convictions (drug offense, murder/attempted murder, Puerto Rico carjacking) satisfy the ACCA/guideline force/element clauses and that the § 2114(a) aggravated postal‑robbery predicate qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A).
- The Supreme Court later held the § 924(c) residual clause unconstitutional in Davis. The district court applied the categorical/modified categorical approach and concluded the aggravated § 2114(a) offense is divisible and, as charged here, meets the elements/force clause.
- The court denied the § 2255 motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACCA enhancement is invalid under Johnson II | Johnson voids ACCA residual clause; Rojas‑Tapia’s priors are not "violent felonies" without residual clause | Prior convictions (serious drug offense, murder, attempted murder, carjacking) qualify under ACCA force clause or as a serious drug offense | Denied — petitioner has sufficient qualifying priors (drug offense + violent felonies) for ACCA enhancement |
| Whether § 924(c) convictions (Counts 2 & 3) must be vacated after Davis | § 924(c)’s residual clause invalid; predicate § 2114(a) (postal robbery) does not categorically meet § 924(c)(3)(A)’s force clause | Petitioner was convicted of the aggravated § 2114(a) (life‑in‑jeopardy by dangerous weapon) which is divisible and imports violent force | Denied — aggravated § 2114(a) is divisible and, as charged, is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) |
| Whether pre‑Booker Career Offender guideline residual clause invalidates enhancement | Johnson invalidates guideline residual clause; without it, prior convictions are not "crimes of violence" for enhancement | Several priors qualify under the force/element clause, so petitioner still meets career‑offender criteria | Denied — petitioner qualifies under the guideline force clause; court need not resolve Johnson applicability to pre‑Booker guidelines |
| Whether a Certificate of Appealability should issue | Petitioner requests leave to appeal | Govt opposes; argues no substantial showing of constitutional denial | Denied — no substantial showing under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (§ 924(c) residual clause held unconstitutionally vague)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits on categorical/modified categorical approach)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (divisibility and categorical approach principles)
- United States v. Taylor, 848 F.3d 476 (1st Cir.) (dangerous‑weapon element imports violent‑force requirement)
- United States v. Starks, 861 F.3d 306 (1st Cir. 2017) (definition of physical force as "violent force")
- United States v. Cruz‑Rivera, 904 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2018) (applying categorical approach to § 924(c) predicates)