Thomas Boaz v. United States, 884 F.3d 808

Thomas Boaz was sentenced in 2009 to 190 months’ imprisonment after the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement.
In 2016 Boaz filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition arguing Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause, so he no longer qualified as an armed career criminal and sought resentencing.
The Government argued (1) Boaz’s 1974 Arizona conviction for exhibiting a deadly weapon qualifies under the ACCA force clause, so ACCA still applies; and (2) even without ACCA, the district court could lawfully impose 190 months because each count’s statutory maximum (without ACCA) would still permit the sentence.
The Arizona statute (repealed) criminalized drawing or exhibiting a deadly weapon in a threatening manner or unlawfully using it in a fight or quarrel, and the conviction is punishable by >1 year imprisonment.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the Arizona conviction categorically qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA’s force clause and compared the Arizona statute to a materially similar Missouri statute previously held to satisfy the force clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boaz’s 1974 Arizona conviction satisfies the ACCA force clause (i.e., necessarily involves use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force)	Boaz: Arizona statute can reach non-threatening conduct "likely to endanger" others; thus it does not necessarily require threatened use of physical force and fails the categorical test	Govt: The statute requires exhibiting a "deadly" weapon in a threatening manner or unlawful use in a fight; materially indistinguishable from Missouri statute held to be a threatened use of force, so it qualifies	Held: The Arizona conviction qualifies under the ACCA force clause; Boaz remains an armed career criminal without relying on the residual clause
Whether Boaz’s sentence would remain lawful even if ACCA did not apply because the sentence did not exceed statutory maxima for his counts	Boaz: Sentence rests on ACCA enhancement and should be vacated if ACCA no longer applies	Govt: Even without ACCA, district court had authority to impose 190 months because statutory maximums for the counts permit it; § 2255 claim fails if sentence within statutory limits	Held: Court affirmed on predicate issue and did not need to resolve alternative statutory-maximum argument (but noted precedent supports the Government’s position)

United States v. Jordan, 812 F.3d 1183 (8th Cir.) (defines "physical force" as violent force for ACCA force-clause analysis)
Jones v. United States, 870 F.3d 750 (8th Cir.) (explains categorical approach and ACCA force-clause elements)
United States v. Pulliam, 566 F.3d 784 (8th Cir.) (holding that displaying a weapon in an angry or threatening manner qualifies as threatened use of physical force)
United States v. Hudson, 851 F.3d 807 (8th Cir.) (reaffirming Pulliam on weapon-display offenses in force-clause context)
United States v. Boaz, 558 F.3d 800 (8th Cir.) (Boaz’s direct appeal where the Arizona offense was compared to the Missouri offense)
Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. en banc) (holding that a sentence within statutory maximum does not present a cognizable § 2255 claim)