Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02100/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Apodaca
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

In re: DAVID APODACA, 

 Movant. 

No. 16-2100 

(D.C. Nos. 1:08-CV-01025-WJ-KBM & 

1:06-CR-01828-WJ-6) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, GORSUCH, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Movant David Apodaca, 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). Because Movant has 

made a prima facie showing that he satisfies the relevant conditions for authorization 

under § 2255(h)(2), we grant authorization. 

Movant received a sentence enhanced under the guideline for career offenders, 

which is triggered by the defendant having “two prior qualifying felony convictions of 

either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense,” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). At 

least one of his prior convictions qualified for this purpose by virtue of the residual clause 

in the guideline’s definition of a crime of violence, which encompasses crimes that 

 1

 The Federal Public Defender for the District of New Mexico is appointed to 

represent David Apodaca pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 24, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2100 Document: 01019626736 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 1 
2 

“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. 

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

meets the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255(h). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); see Case v. 

Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1028–29 (10th Cir. 2013). A claim 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.” Johnson

announced a new rule of constitutional law that was made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016). We held in 

In re Encinias, No. 16–8038, 2016 WL 1719323, at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2016) 

(per curiam), that second or successive § 2255 motions that rely on Johnson to challenge 

the career offender guideline qualify for authorization under § 2255(h)(2). 

Accordingly, we grant David Apodaca authorization to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion in district court to raise a claim based on Johnson v. United States. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 16-2100 Document: 01019626736 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 2