United States v. Anthony Mayo
901 F.3d 218
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Anthony Mayo was convicted in 2001 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 276 months under the ACCA’s mandatory‑minimum enhancement based on three prior Pennsylvania convictions (one aggravated assault §2702(a)(1) and two robberies).
- Mayo later filed a successive §2255 motion after Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause; the Third Circuit granted permission to file the successive motion.
- The District Court denied relief, concluding Mayo’s Pennsylvania convictions qualified as ACCA predicates under the elements (force) clause, relying in part on uncontroverted facts in the PSR.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit held the district court should have considered whether the sentence may have rested on the now‑invalid residual clause (jurisdictional gatekeeping satisfied because the sentencing court did not specify the clause relied on).
- The panel applied the categorical/modified categorical approach and concluded §2702(a)(1) (attempt or causing serious bodily injury; including by omission/neglect) does not categorically require the ACCA’s element of violent physical force.
- Because the aggravated assault predicate can be committed by omissions (e.g., starvation, neglect) that do not involve affirmative violent force, the Court vacated the denial of Mayo’s §2255 motion and remanded for resentencing (declining to decide the robbery predicates at this time).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mayo) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction to hear successive §2255 based on Johnson | Mayo: sentencing may have relied on ACCA residual clause; he made prima facie showing | Gov’t: movant must show sentence was based on residual clause before district court may proceed | Held: Jurisdiction proper — sentencing court didn’t specify clause and record doesn’t show residual clause wasn’t relied on, so successive filing gatekeeping satisfied |
| Whether Pa. aggravated assault §2702(a)(1) is an ACCA violent felony under the elements (force) clause | Mayo: §2702(a)(1) criminalizes causing serious bodily injury and can be committed by omissions; lacks an element of violent physical force | Gov’t: causing bodily injury necessarily involves physical force (relying on Castleman and related authority) | Held: §2702(a)(1) does not categorically require violent physical force and therefore is not an ACCA predicate under the elements clause |
| Whether district court could rely on PSR factual recitation to establish force element | Mayo: reliance on underlying conduct is improper under the categorical approach | Gov’t: uncontested PSR facts show force in this case | Held: District court erred to the extent it relied on underlying facts beyond identifying the statutory subsection; categorical inquiry controls |
| Remedy / effect on sentence | Mayo: without the aggravated assault predicate he lacks three ACCA predicates and his sentence exceeds the non‑enhanced statutory maximum | Gov’t: argued convictions still qualify (and jurisdictional defense) | Held: Vacated denial of §2255; remanded for resentencing and for district court to determine remaining predicates; if none remain and Mayo has served the non‑enhanced maximum, he should be released accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson made retroactive on collateral review)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical/modified categorical approach guidance)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (definition of "physical force" as violent force under ACCA context)
- United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014) (interpreting "causation of bodily injury" in relation to common‑law force)
- United States v. Ramos, 892 F.3d 599 (3d Cir. 2018) (Pa. §2702(a)(4) (deadly weapon) holds as categorical force crime; discussion of modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Chapman, 866 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2017) (use of force analysis under guidelines; reliance on Castleman)
- United States v. Middleton, 883 F.3d 485 (4th Cir. 2018) (statute not a force predicate where it can be violated by nonviolent omission)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits on modified categorical approach)