Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02107/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew F. Thyberg
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: MATTHEW F. THYBERG, 

 Movant.

No. 16-2107

(D.C. No. 2:08-CR-02897-RB-1)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Movant Matthew F. Thyberg, a federal prisoner proceeding through counsel, seeks 

an order authorizing him to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the 

district court so he may assert a claim for relief based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. 

Ct. 2551 (2015).

1

 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3). We deny authorization as 

unnecessary. 

In 2010, Movant was convicted of a firearms offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g). He alleges that he received a sentence enhanced under the sentencing guideline 

for unlawful receipt, possession, or transportation of firearms or ammunition, which is 

triggered by the defendant committing the offense after having been convicted of one or 

more crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a). The 

term “crime of violence” in § 2K2.1(a) “has the meaning given that term in § 4B1.2(a) 

 1 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, Jared Abrams is appointed as counsel for 

Matthew F. Thyberg effective nunc pro tunc to the date the request for authorization to 

file a second or successive § 2255 motion was filed in this court.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 2, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2107 Document: 01019631225 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 1 
2

and Application Note 1 of the Commentary to § 4B1.2.” Id. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.1. Movant 

alleges that at least one of his prior convictions was treated as a crime of violence by 

virtue of the residual clause in § 4B1.2, which encompasses crimes that “involve[] 

conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” id.

§ 4B1.2(a)(2). An identical clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was invalidated in 

Johnson on the ground that it was unconstitutionally vague.

Movant claims that his first § 2255 motion was denied by the district court “based 

on its conclusion that his motion was untimely.” Mot. for Authorization at 3. However, 

it does not appear from the district court’s docket sheet that Movant has ever filed an 

initial § 2255 motion. Though Movant references district court docket numbers 81 and 

109 as evidence of his prior § 2255 motion, see id. at 2, the referenced documents are that 

of the district court’s initial judgment of conviction and this Court’s affirmance on direct 

appeal. 

Because Movant does not require authorization from this Court prior to filing an 

initial § 2255 motion in district court, the motion for authorization is denied as 

unnecessary without prejudice to counsel filing a subsequent motion in the event this 

Court’s review of Movant’s procedural history is incorrect. This denial of authorization 

“shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a 

writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-2107 Document: 01019631225 Date Filed: 06/02/2016 Page: 2