United States v. Mendez, 924 F.3d 1122

Defendant Armando Mendez pleaded guilty (2018) to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possessing a firearm as a felon.
Presentence report treated a 2001 Colorado attempted-robbery conviction as a "crime of violence," producing a Guidelines base offense level 20 and a recommended 30–37 month sentence.
Mendez objected, arguing Colorado attempted-robbery does not categorically qualify under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a); without the enhancement his base level would be 14 (15–21 months).
District court adopted the probation officer’s view and imposed a 30-month sentence.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Colorado attempted-robbery fits § 4B1.2(a) under the categorical approach, comparing Colorado’s attempt statute to the Model Penal Code generic definition.
The court affirmed, concluding Colorado’s attempt statute corresponds in substance to the generic definition and Mendez offered only speculative possibilities, not state decisions showing overbreadth.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Colorado attempted robbery is a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)	Mendez: Colorado’s attempt statute sweeps more broadly than the generic (MPC) definition; the statute’s wording ("any conduct . . . which is strongly corroborative") could criminalize conduct the MPC would not, so the conviction is not categorically a crime of violence	Government/District Court: Colorado’s attempt statute substantially corresponds to the MPC/generic definition (both require a "substantial step" strongly corroborative of intent); no Colorado decisions show prosecutions for nongeneric conduct	Affirmed: Colorado attempted-robbery is a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a); defendant’s speculative examples insufficient to show realistic probability of overbreadth

United States v. Charles, 576 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir.) (de novo review and categorical approach principles)
United States v. O’Connor, 874 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.) (categorical approach and comparing state statutes to a generic definition)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S.) (use of generic meaning in categorical approach)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (U.S.) (requirement of realistic probability, not theoretical possibility, to show state statute covers nongeneric conduct)
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (U.S.) (defendant must point to actual state court applications showing nongeneric use)
United States v. Harris, 844 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir.) (Colorado robbery treated as a crime of violence in related contexts)
People v. Lehnert, 163 P.3d 1111 (Colo. 2007) (Colorado Supreme Court recounting that the statute focuses on conduct that corroborates intent; does not support that statute criminalizes mere preparation)