927 F.3d 160
4th Cir.2019Background
- Kevin Battle pleaded guilty in 2011 to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to a 15-year mandatory minimum based on three prior convictions, including a 1991 Maryland conviction for assault with intent to murder (AWIM).
- Battle previously appealed his ACCA designation; this Court affirmed in 2012. He later filed successive § 2255 relief after Johnson v. United States and Welch made the ACCA residual clause invalid and retroactive.
- In his successive § 2255 petition Battle argued that his 1991 AWIM conviction no longer qualifies as an ACCA “violent felony” post-Johnson because it relied on the residual clause or could be committed without violent force.
- The district court denied relief, concluding AWIM satisfies the ACCA’s force clause (the element of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force) and granted a certificate of appealability.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, applying the categorical approach, relying on Maryland law defining AWIM (assault coupled with specific intent to murder) and Supreme Court precedent holding that intentional or knowing causation of bodily injury necessarily involves physical force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland AWIM is a "violent felony" under the ACCA force clause | Battle: AWIM may be committed without the use of physical force (e.g., by omission or indirect means), so it does not categorically require violent force | Government: AWIM requires assault plus specific intent to murder—intentional causation of injury/death necessarily involves physical force, so it is a violent felony | AWIM is a violent felony under ACCA’s force clause; denial of § 2255 relief affirmed |
| Whether Castleman’s logic applies to ACCA analysis | Battle: Castleman does not necessarily control ACCA force-clause analysis in all contexts | Government: Castleman’s holding that intentional/knowing causation of bodily injury involves force extends to ACCA predicates | Castleman applies; intentional causation element of AWIM satisfies ACCA force clause |
| Whether Maryland case law supports conviction of AWIM by omission | Battle: Maryland decisions (depraved-heart murder cases) show omissions can cause death without assaultive force | Government: Those cases involve different mens rea (extreme indifference) and do not show realistic probability that AWIM would be applied to omissions | Maryland precedent does not show AWIM convictions based on mere omissions; AWIM requires intent to kill |
| Whether post‑Johnson invalidation of ACCA residual clause renders Battle’s ACCA status invalid | Battle: With residual clause gone, AWIM no longer qualifies as a predicate | Government: AWIM qualifies under the ACCA force clause independent of residual clause | Residual clause inapplicable; AWIM still qualifies under force clause, so ACCA designation stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Castleman v. United States, 572 U.S. 157 (intentional or knowing causation of bodily injury necessarily involves physical force)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishing the categorical approach for predicate-offense analysis)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (making Johnson retroactive to cases on collateral review)
- In re Irby, 858 F.3d 231 (4th Cir.) (applying Castleman to crimes requiring intentional causation of death)
- United States v. Reid, 861 F.3d 523 (4th Cir.) (holding a statute requiring knowing infliction of bodily injury qualifies under ACCA force clause)
- United States v. Middleton, 883 F.3d 485 (4th Cir.) (distinguishing crimes that may cause injury without intentional use of force)
- United States v. Haight, 892 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir.) (concluding Maryland first-degree assault is a violent felony)