United States v. Snyder
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18257
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Snyder pleaded guilty (2004) to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced in 2005 as an armed career criminal under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to the 15-year statutory minimum.
- The PSR counted two Wyoming residential burglary convictions and a controlled-substance conviction as ACCA predicates; Snyder objected only on Apprendi grounds and did not contest that the Wyoming residential burglaries qualified as ACCA predicates at sentencing or on direct appeal.
- Snyder filed a § 2255 motion after the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. United States (2015), arguing Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause and therefore his ACCA enhancement was unlawful and his sentence exceeded the lawful maximum.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion as untimely and on the merits, finding the record showed the ACCA enhancement rested on the enumerated burglary clause, not the residual clause.
- The Tenth Circuit granted a COA, held Snyder’s Johnson-based § 2255 was timely under § 2255(f)(3), found he overcame procedural default by showing cause and prejudice, but affirmed on the merits because the sentencing relied on the ACCA’s enumerated-offenses clause rather than the residual clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) | Snyder: his motion is within one year of Johnson and thus timely. | Gov't: motion untimely because conviction became final long before Johnson and Johnson does not help where sentence was based on enumerated clause. | Court: timely — § 2255(f)(3) requires only that petitioner assert the newly recognized right; Snyder invoked Johnson within one year. |
| Procedural default (failure to raise issue on direct appeal) | Snyder: Johnson was novel; excuse for default (cause) and he suffered prejudice (sentence exceeds lawful maximum). | Gov't: Snyder could have raised issues earlier; default bars relief. | Court: Snyder showed cause (Johnson unexpectedly overruled prior precedent) and prejudice (ACCA exposure vs. § 924(a)(2) max made the error outcome-determinative). |
| Merits — Whether sentence relied on ACCA residual clause (Johnson) | Snyder: his Wyoming burglary convictions no longer qualify after Johnson; ACCA enhancement invalid. | Gov't: record shows sentencing relied on ACCA’s enumerated burglary clause (Taylor/Tenth Circuit precedent), not the residual clause. | Court: Snyder’s claim fails on the merits — sentencing rested on the enumerated-offenses clause; Johnson does not invalidate that basis. |
| Nature of Snyder’s claim (Johnson vs. Taylor/Shepard challenge) | Snyder: framed as Johnson challenge to ACCA enhancement. | Gov't: effectively a Taylor/Shepard categorical-analysis challenge to whether Wyoming burglary is an ACCA burglary. | Court: treated it as primarily a challenge under the enumerated clause; Johnson does not help because the record and background law show reliance on the enumerated clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (rules that facts increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (adopts categorical approach for burglary as ACCA predicate)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits materials sentencing court may consult to determine whether prior conviction qualifies)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidates ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016) (holds Johnson rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarifies categorical approach and when state offenses are broader than generic crime)
- Gonzales v. United States, 558 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2009) (held Wyoming residential burglary qualified as ACCA burglary under prior circuit law)
- Geozos v. United States, 870 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2017) (discusses determining whether sentencing relied on residual clause by viewing record plus contemporary legal landscape)
- Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) (defines prejudice standard for procedural default)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (procedural-default rule permits collateral review when cause and prejudice shown)