United States v. Robert Hoxworth, 11 F.4th 693

Hoxworth was found in a stranger’s backyard wearing only underwear, covered in blood, and holding a rifle; the homeowner disarmed him and called police.
Hoxworth, a convicted felon, was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm.
He sought a jury instruction claiming justification/self-defense for possessing the rifle; the district court refused and the jury convicted him.
The district court imposed a 180-month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), based on three prior violent-felony convictions including a Texas aggravated-assault conviction.
On appeal Hoxworth argued (1) he was legally justified in possessing the rifle and (2) his Texas aggravated-assault conviction does not qualify as an ACCA “violent felony.”
The panel affirmed the felon-in-possession conviction (justification failed), but concluded the Texas aggravated-assault conviction is not an ACCA violent felony under Borden v. United States and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Hoxworth's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether he was entitled to a justification (self-defense) instruction on felon-in-possession	He possessed the rifle to defend against armed attackers and thus was justified	Justification is not available because he recklessly placed himself in danger, had legal alternatives, no imminent threat, and an armed confrontation was not reasonable	Even assuming justification can apply to § 922(g), the facts did not meet the elements for justification; the instruction was properly denied and conviction affirmed
Whether a Texas aggravated-assault conviction qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the elements clause	The prior Texas offense does not qualify because it can be committed recklessly (so it lacks the required element of intentional use/threat of physical force)	Government initially treated it as a predicate but conceded Borden controls; court noted the statute allows reckless mens rea so it cannot qualify	Under Borden and Mathis, crimes that can be committed recklessly do not satisfy the elements clause; Texas aggravated assault therefore is not an ACCA violent felony and Hoxworth’s sentence is vacated/remanded for resentencing

El-Alamin v. United States, 574 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2009) (articulating elements for justification instruction)
Hudson v. United States, 414 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonable legal alternatives factor in justification analysis)
Perrin v. United States, 45 F.3d 869 (4th Cir. 1995) (immediacy requirement for justification)
Boaz v. United States, 884 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for ACCA predicate question)
Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (plurality) (crimes that can be committed recklessly do not qualify under ACCA elements clause)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (analysis of divisible vs. indivisible statutes for predicate offenses)
Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (Texas statute treats intentional/knowing/reckless as alternative means of a single offense)
Fogg v. United States, 836 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2016) (pre-Borden precedent on recklessness and ACCA predicates)