United States v. Manzanares, 956 F.3d 1220

In 2013 Archie Manzanares pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and to simple possession; his plea agreement contemplated a 15-year sentence if he qualified as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA).
The district court found Manzanares had three prior violent-felony convictions under New Mexico law (armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and aggravated battery) and imposed the 15‑year ACCA sentence.
After his conviction became final, the Supreme Court invalidated the ACCA Residual Clause in Johnson II and made that decision retroactive; Manzanares filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing his New Mexico priors no longer qualified as violent felonies.
The district court denied relief, concluding all three predicates satisfy the ACCA Elements Clause; it granted a certificate of appealability (COA) only as to the armed robbery predicate and denied COA on the other two.
Manzanares appealed the armed robbery classification and moved to expand the COA to include the aggravated‑assault and aggravated‑battery predicates; the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of § 2255 relief and denied expansion of the COA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Manzanares)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether N.M. armed robbery (§30‑16‑2) qualifies under the ACCA Elements Clause	Garcia was wrongly decided; NM robbery does not categorically require Johnson‑level physical force	Garcia and Stokeling control; NM robbery requires force that overcomes victim resistance, which is "physical force"	Affirmed — armed robbery qualifies under Elements Clause
Whether aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (§30‑3‑2(A)) qualifies under Elements Clause	Prior Tenth Circuit decisions are wrong and undermined by later NM cases	Binding Tenth Circuit precedent (Ramon Silva; Maldonado‑Palma) holds the statute requires threat/use of physical force	Not reasonably debatable — qualifies; COA denied
Whether aggravated battery (§30‑3‑5(C)) qualifies under Elements Clause	Statute focuses on resulting harm, not necessarily Johnson‑level force; relies on older Tenth Circuit precedents	Ontiveros and Supreme Court's Castleman show bodily injury implies physical force; earlier contrary Tenth Circuit cases are overruled	Not reasonably debatable — qualifies
Whether COA should be expanded to include the other two predicates	Requests COA expansion to appeal assault and battery holdings	Opposes expansion; district court's disposition not debatable under controlling precedent	Denied — COA not expanded

Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defines "physical force" as violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidates ACCA Residual Clause)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson II applies retroactively on collateral review)
Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) (force necessary to overcome victim resistance satisfies Johnson I)
Castleman v. United States, 572 U.S. 157 (2014) (causing bodily injury entails physical force)
United States v. Garcia, 877 F.3d 944 (10th Cir. 2017) (New Mexico robbery categorically satisfies Elements Clause)
United States v. Ontiveros, 875 F.3d 533 (10th Cir. 2017) (applies Castleman to hold state assault is a crime of violence)
United States v. Maldonado‑Palma, 839 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2016) (N.M. aggravated assault with deadly weapon is a crime of violence)
United States v. Ramon Silva, 608 F.3d 663 (10th Cir. 2010) (N.M. aggravated assault is a violent felony under Elements Clause)