Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-03170/USCOURTS-ca10-19-03170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Piyarath S. Kayarath
Petitioner

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 24, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: PIYARATH S. KAYARATH, 

 Movant.

Nos. 16-3172 & 19-3170

(D.C. Nos. 5:01-CV-03267-MLB, 

6:94-CR-10128-WEB-2 & 

6:94-CR-10123-MLB-2)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HOLMES, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Movant, Piyarath S. Kayarath, seeks authorization to file a second or successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court so he may challenge his conviction and 

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1).

1

 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3). This 

matter is currently abated; we now lift the abatement.

Movant was charged in Count 2 of a Superseding Indictment with carrying or 

using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and during the course thereof 

causing the death of a person, by murder, through the use of a firearm in violation of 

 1 Section 924(j) states: “A person who, in the course of a violation of 

subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm, shall-- if the 

killing is a murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or by imprisonment 

for any term of years or for life.” At the time of Mr. Kayarath’s conviction, § 924(i)(1) 

contained the language that is now contained in § 924(j)(1). Mr. Kayarath was therefore 

convicted under § 924(i)(1), but we will refer to § 924(j)(1) for the purposes of this 

motion because that is the current location of the language previously contained in 

§ 924(i)(1).

Appellate Case: 19-3170 Document: 010110294973 Date Filed: 01/24/2020 Page: 1
2

18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and 924(j)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The judgment in Movant’s case

reflects that he was found guilty on Count 2 of violating § 924(j)(1) and sentenced to life 

in prison. He alleges that the underlying offense for Count 2 qualified as a “crime of 

violence” only as that term is defined in § 924(c)(3)’s residual clause. The 

Supreme Court invalidated this clause as unconstitutionally vague in United States v. 

Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019).

To obtain authorization, Movant must make a prima facie showing that his second 

or successive § 2255 motion meets the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255(h). 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(C); see also United States v. Murphy, 887 F.3d 1064, 1067 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 139 S. Ct. 414 (2018). In assessing this showing, we do not consider the merits 

of the second or successive motion. See In re Barrett, 840 F.3d 1223, 1227 (10th Cir. 

2016); Ochoa v. Sirmons, 485 F.3d 538, 544 (10th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). A motion 

may be authorized under § 2255(h)(2) if it relies on “a new rule of constitutional law, 

made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable.” Davis announced a new rule of constitutional law that the Court made 

retroactive to cases on collateral review through the combination of its holdings in Welch 

v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016), and Davis. See In re Mullins, 942 F.3d 

975, 979 (10th Cir. 2019). 

Movant was convicted of violating § 924(j), which specifically refers to and 

requires a violation of § 924(c), and Davis invalidated § 924(c) as unconstitutionally 

vague. Accordingly, we grant Movant authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 

motion in district court challenging his § 924(j) conviction and sentence under Davis. 

Appellate Case: 19-3170 Document: 010110294973 Date Filed: 01/24/2020 Page: 2
3

We deny Movant’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice to him renewing his 

request in district court. We also deny as moot Movant’s motion for leave to amend his 

motion for authorization, which was filed on January 21, 2020. 

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 19-3170 Document: 010110294973 Date Filed: 01/24/2020 Page: 3