United States v. Boyd
685 F. App'x 688
10th Cir.2017Background
- Ronald Boyd pleaded guilty in 2005 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
- The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and the Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.4 based on two drug convictions and an Oklahoma conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 645).
- After Johnson (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause, Boyd filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing his § 645 conviction no longer qualified as a violent felony.
- While Boyd’s § 2255 motion was pending, this circuit decided United States v. Taylor, holding that § 645’s element requiring use of a “dangerous weapon” satisfies the Guidelines’ elements clause because a dangerous weapon use necessarily involves a threatened use of force.
- The district court relied on Taylor, denied Boyd’s § 2255 relief and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (COA). Boyd sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an Oklahoma conviction for battery with a dangerous weapon under § 645 qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the ACCA/elements clause | Boyd: Battery with a dangerous weapon can be committed without "violent force" and thus may not meet the elements clause after Johnson | Government: Taylor and prior Tenth Circuit precedent treat § 645 (dangerous-weapon element) as satisfying the elements clause because weapon use implies threatened force | Held: The court denied a COA and dismissed the appeal, concluding Taylor and Treto-Martinez control and § 645 with a dangerous weapon qualifies as a crime of violence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defining "physical force" requirement in elements-clause analysis)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating the ACCA residual clause)
- United States v. Taylor, 843 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2016) (concluding § 645’s dangerous-weapon alternative satisfies the elements clause)
- United States v. Treto-Martinez, 421 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding aggravated-battery statute with a deadly-weapon element meets an elements clause despite possible absence of substantial force)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for granting a certificate of appealability)