United States v. Contreras
689 F. App'x 886
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Norbert Contreras was convicted of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113) in 2006 and sentenced to mandatory life under the federal "three strikes" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), based on three robbery convictions (1981 New Mexico armed robberies, a 1999 federal bank robbery, and the 2006 conviction).
- The district court treated the 1981 New Mexico armed robberies as qualifying under § 3559(c)’s enumerated-offenses and elements clauses, and the 1999 and 2006 bank robberies as enumerated offenses; it did not rely on § 3559(c)’s residual clause.
- Contreras’ direct appeal and sentence were affirmed by the Tenth Circuit and certiorari was denied in 2009.
- After Johnson v. United States (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause and Welch made Johnson retroactive, Contreras filed a § 2255 motion in 2016 arguing § 3559(c)’s residual clause is similarly unconstitutional and that his sentence therefore is unconstitutional.
- The district court denied relief, finding it had not relied on § 3559(c)’s residual clause and that Contreras’s predicate convictions qualified under the enumerated and elements clauses; it denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
- The Tenth Circuit denied a COA on appeal, holding Contreras’s challenge was time-barred because Johnson is inapplicable where the sentencing court did not rely on the residual clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA residual clause invalidates § 3559(c)’s residual clause and entitles Contreras to relief | Johnson’s reasoning applies to § 3559(c)’s residual clause, so Contreras’s sentence is unconstitutional | District court did not rely on § 3559(c)’s residual clause; predicate convictions were sustained under enumerated and elements clauses | Denied as unnecessary to reach; Court treated Johnson as inapplicable because district did not rely on residual clause |
| Whether Contreras’s New Mexico robbery convictions qualify as "serious violent felonies" under § 3559(c) | Contreras argued the state robbery convictions do not qualify under enumerated or elements clauses | Government maintained the prior convictions qualify under the enumerated-offense and elements clauses | Court accepted district court’s determination that the prior convictions qualified under enumerated/elements clauses |
| Whether Contreras’s § 2255 motion is timely under § 2255(f)(3) relying on Johnson | Johnson is a newly recognized retroactive right that resets the one-year filing period | Johnson only applies to residual-clause-based enhancements; district did not use the residual clause, so § 2255(f)(3) does not save the filing | Motion was time-barred; Johnson did not confer a timely filing right because the residual clause was not the basis for the sentence |
| Whether a COA should issue to appeal the § 2255 denial | Contreras argued reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s legal assessment of his predicate convictions and timeliness | Government argued no substantial showing of a constitutional right; timeliness and non-reliance on residual clause dispose of the claim | COA denied; reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Contreras, 536 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming conviction and sentence on direct appeal)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (holding Johnson retroactive on collateral review)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (clarifying showing required for COA)
- United States v. Cockerham, 237 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)