Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-00585/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-00585-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry James Rady
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry James Rady, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 16-01294-PHX-FJM

 CR 04-00585-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The Court has before it Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (Doc. 1), the

Government’s Response (Doc. 4), and exhibits, Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 5), the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 6), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 7), and the Government’s Response

to the Objections (Doc. 8). 

Petitioner contends that his two armed robbery convictions under prior Arizona law are

not violent felonies within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(B)(i), which requires as an

element, “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of

another.” Petitioner relies on Johnson v. United States (Curtis Johnson), 559 U.S. 133, 140

(2010), which defined “physical force” to mean “force capable of causing physical pain or

injury to another person.” The magistrate judge rejected this contention, in reliance on State

v. Bishop, 698 P.2d 1240, 1243(Ariz. 1985), construing the prior Arizona robbery statute to

require force “of such a nature as to show that it was intended to overpower the party

robbed.” 

Case 2:04-cr-00585-DGC Document 107 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Petitioner objects to the R&R and contends that the prior Arizona robbery statute, A.R.S.

§13-641, included robbery broader than that defined in Bishop.

Although the law related to what constitutes a violent felony is admittedly a mess, in this

and other contexts, Petitioner’s contention splits the hair too finely under any interpretation.

Petitioner was twice convicted of armed robbery, which required the use of a gun or other

deadly weapon. One cannot commit armed robbery without using or threatening to use

physical force against another, within the meaning of §924(e)(2)(B)(i), and the gun or other

deadly weapon is “capable of causing physical pain or injury” within the meaning of Curtis

Johnson. We thus accept the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition (Doc. 6).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED DENYING Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 1). It is

further ORDERED DENYING a certificate of appealability under Rule 11, Rules Governing

Section 2255 Proceedings, for the reason that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c). 

 DATED this 15th day of February, 2017.

Case 2:04-cr-00585-DGC Document 107 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 2