United States v. McGuire
678 F. App'x 643
10th Cir.2017Background
- Patrick McGuire was convicted by a jury in 1993 of aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and sentenced to 25 years after a PSR recommended a career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior violent felonies and his instant offense being a "crime of violence."
- He was acquitted of separate firearms charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and of being a felon in possession.
- In 2016 McGuire filed a § 2255 motion arguing his sentence should be vacated in light of Johnson v. United States (invalidating the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act).
- The district court denied relief, finding McGuire was not convicted under § 924(c) and that his bank-robbery conviction qualified as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines’ elements clause (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(1)(i)), so Johnson did not help him.
- McGuire sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit; the panel exercised judicial notice of the criminal-filed indictment and jury instructions to apply the modified categorical approach.
- The Tenth Circuit denied a COA and dismissed the appeal, concluding no reasonable jurist would debate the district court’s denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McGuire’s § 2255 claim is cognizable because he was convicted under § 924(c) and Johnson invalidates that conviction | McGuire contends he was convicted under § 924(c) and that Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause requires vacatur | McGuire was not convicted under § 924(c); his § 2255 claim on that ground is factually incorrect | Denied — McGuire was not convicted under § 924(c), so no claim on that basis |
| Whether the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 relied on the now-invalid residual clause and thus is void under Johnson | McGuire (liberally construed) argues the enhancement rested on the Guidelines’ residual clause identical to the statute invalidated by Johnson | The government/district court: McGuire’s bank robbery qualifies under the elements clause of § 4B1.2(1)(i), so Johnson’s residual-clause ruling is inapplicable | Denied — § 2113(a) is divisible and McGuire’s conviction (aiding/abetting a taking by force/violence or intimidation) satisfies the elements clause |
| Whether § 2113(a)’s “intimidation” element constitutes threatened use of physical force for § 4B1.2(1)(i) | McGuire implies his offense could be nonviolent under § 2113(a)’s alternatives | Court: precedent treats “intimidation”/threats as threatened use of physical force; federal bank robbery has been held to qualify under the elements clause | Held — intimidation involves threatened physical force; federal bank robbery qualifies as a predicate under the elements clause |
| Whether McGuire made a substantial showing of a constitutional denial to obtain a COA | McGuire seeks certification that reasonable jurists could debate the denial | The court relied on record (indictment and jury instructions) and precedent showing no substantial showing | Denied — no reasonable jurist would debate the district court’s resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held residual-clause vagueness violation)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015) (Guidelines’ residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- McBride v. United States, 826 F.3d 293 (6th Cir. 2016) (federal bank robbery qualifies under elements clause)
- United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1990) (federal bank robbery as predicate offense under Guidelines)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)