United States v. Windley
864 F.3d 36
1st Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Travis Windley pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The government appealed the district court’s decision not to treat one of Windley’s prior Massachusetts assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (ABDW) convictions as a violent felony under ACCA, which would have triggered a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Massachusetts ABDW exists in two forms: intentional and reckless. Shepard documents for Windley’s ABDW convictions were unavailable, so both forms must qualify as violent felonies to count.
- After Johnson (striking ACCA’s residual clause), the court’s inquiry focused on ACCA’s force clause (use of physical force against another).
- The court concluded Massachusetts reckless ABDW does not categorically require the use of force against another person because it can be committed with a recklessness mens rea that does not require intent to injure or awareness of substantial risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Massachusetts reckless ABDW qualifies as a "violent felony" under ACCA's force clause (use of physical force against the person of another). | Government: Reckless ABDW should count as a violent felony because it results in bodily injury from conduct involving force. | Windley: Reckless ABDW can be committed without intent to injure or awareness of substantial risk, so it does not have as an element the use of physical force against another. | The court held reckless ABDW is not a violent felony under the force clause, adopting reasoning that recklessness-based offenses create grievous ambiguity and must not be treated as ACCA violent felonies. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tavares, 843 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (interpreting intentional ABDW under the force clause for Guidelines crimes of violence)
- United States v. Faust, 853 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2017) (discussing Shepard document limits when categorizing prior convictions)
- United States v. Fish, 758 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (analyzing mens rea and force-clause applicability)
- United States v. Whindleton, 797 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2015) (addressing prior Massachusetts convictions in ACCA context)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limiting the documents usable to determine the nature of prior convictions)