NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
TONY C AR

ZELL GR

EEN, ) No. 17-35281

) Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt, ) D.C . No. 3:16-c v-00406-M C

) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) C ALVIN JOHNSON, ) ) R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l J. M c Shane , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 5, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon
B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SESSIONS, ** Distric t Judge
. Tony

C arz e ll Gre e n a

ppe a ls the de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha

be a s c orpus pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2241. Thedistric t c o urt de te rm ine d tha t it la c ke d 

# FIL ED N OV 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de signa t ion.jurisdic tion. W e a ffirm
.

Gre e n a rgue s tha t he c o uld proc e e d

unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2241 be c a use he m e t the “ e sc a pe hatc h” c onditions set forth in 28 U.S.C . § 2255(e ). That is, hea sse rts that he c an proc e e d be c a

use he “ ‘ (1) [m a de ] a

c la im of a c tua l innoc e n c e , a

nd (2) ha s not ha d a

n unobstruc te d proc e dura l shot a t pre s e nting tha

t c la im .’ ” Marre ro v . Iv e s , 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th C ir. 2012); se ealso Harrison v . Ollison , 519 F.3d 952, 962 (9th C ir. 2008). W e do not a gre e . It is fa r from c le ar tha t Gre e n c an susta in a c la im

of a c tua l innoc e nc e of a

n e nha nc e d se nte nc e unde r the C are e r Offe nde r provision of the Unite d State s Se nte nc ing Guide line s; 1 we have not pre v iously

so he l d , 2 and we ne e d not do so in this c a se be c a use he doe s not m e e t the s e c ond pa

rt of the e sc a

pe hatc h te st. One of the State of W a shington c o nvic tions tha t wa s use d to support the
e nha nc e m e nt wa s for c onspira c y to de l ive r c oc a ine , 3 but Gre e n doe s not a sse rt tha

t he wa s a c tua lly

innoc e nt of c o m

m i tting tha

t offe n se in W a shington. At its c ore , his
c la im is tha t unde r W a shington’ s la

w re ga rding a c c o m

plic e s— its a iding a

nd

1 Se e USSG §4B 1
. 1. Unle ss othe rwise indic ate d, a l l re fe re nc e s to theUnite d Stat e s Se nte nc i ng Guide line s a re to the Nove m

b e r 1, 1997 ve rsion the re of.
2 Se e Marre ro , 682 F.3d a t 1193–95. 3 Se e W a sh. R e v. C ode §§ 69.50.407, 69.50.401(1)–(2)(a ); se ealso id. § 69.50.206(b)(4). 2a

be tting la w
— a ll tha t m u s t be shown is tha

t the a c c use d

ha d a c te d

with the

“ knowle dge ” tha

t his a c tions would “

prom ote or fa c ilita

t e ” the c rim e , 4 whe re a s unde r the ge ne ric (and fe de ra l) de finition of aiding a n d a be tting, “ spe c ific inte nt” is
re quire d. 5 He a lso a

rgue s tha t the a iding a

nd a be tting provision affe c t s c rim ina l
c onspira c y

c ha rge s in W a shington. Se eValdiv i a-Flore s , 876 F.3d a

t 1207–08. As
a re s ult, Gre e n a

rgue s , the c onspira c y

c onvic tion c annot be use d a s a pre dic ate offe nse tha

t supports a

c are e r offe nde r e nha

nc e m e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Frank lin , 904 F.3d. 793, 802–03 (9th C ir. 2018); Valdiv ia-Flore s , 876 F.3d a

t 1209; Unite d State

s v . Gonzale

z-Monte rroso , 745 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th C ir. 2014). Assum ing tha

t line of a rgum e nt is c orre c t, we m

ust point out tha

t Gre e n still fails to de m onstra

te that his a

bility to m ake his c l a im

on dire c t a

ppe a l in De c e m

be r 1998 a nd at the tim e of his first motion under 28 U.S.C
. § 2255 in Novem be r 2000
wa s som e how proc e dura lly obstruc te d . It wa s not. He argue s tha

t be fore De

sc amps v . Unite d State

s , 6 he c o uld not m a

ke his
c ore c la im

be c a use e x i sting la

w pre c lude d re lie f. W e disa g re e . R athe r tha n se tting

4 W a sh. R e v. C ode § 9A.08.020(3)(a); se ealso id. at (2)(c ).
5 Se e Unite d State

s v . Valdiv ia-Flore

s , 876 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th C ir. 2017); se e a lso Unite d State

s v . Garc ia , 400 F.3d 816, 819 (9th C ir. 2005). 6 570 U.S. 254, 257–58, 133 S. C t. 2276, 2281–82, 186 L. Ed. 2d 438 (2013); se e a lso Eze l l v . Unite d State s , 778 F.3d 762, 766 (9th C ir. 2015).

3out ne w or c ha nge d la w, the Supre m e C ourt re a sse rte d (or c la rifie d) its longsta nding position re ga

rding thec at e goric a l a

nd m odifie d

c ate g oric a l a

pproa c he s to de c iding whe the r a

prior c o nvic tion m e t the e le m e nts of thege ne ric c rim e . 7 In the
c ourts of this c irc u i t, Gre e n wa s not pre c lude d from arguing for a

pplic at ion of the
e le m e nts a

pproa c h of Tay lor
. Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Sandov a l-Ve ne

gas , 292 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th C ir. 2002); Unite d State s v . C orona-Sanc he

z , 291 F.3d 1201, 1207–08, 1211 (9th C ir. 2002) (e n ba nc ); Unite d State

s v . Martine

z , 232 F.3d 728, 733 (9th C i r. 2000) ; Unite d State s v . Innie , 7 F.3d 840, 849 (9th C ir. 1993). R athe r, in a

c a se de c i de d in 2007, wem a de it pla in tha t unde r our la

w the m odifie d
c ate goric a l a

pproa c h c o uld not supply a m issing e le m e nt of a

ge n e ric c rim e . N av arro-Lope

z v . Gonzale

s , 503 F.3d 1063, 1073 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ). Alm ost four y e ars la

te r, we re sile d from that de c ision a nd de c la re d tha t the
m odifie d c ate goric a l a

p p roa c h did a llow thesupply ing of a m issing e le m e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Aguila-Monte

s deOc a , 655 F.3d 915, 917 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ) (pe r c uriam ). Of c ourse , le s s tha n two y e ars a fte r tha

t, the Supre m e C ourt

7 Se e Tay lor v . Unite d State s , 495 U.S. 575, 599, 602, 110 S. C t. 2143, 2158, 2160, 109 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1990); se ealso Mathis v. Unite d State s , __ U.S. ___, ___, 136 S. C t. 2243, 2257, 195 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2016); De s c amps , 570 U.S. a

t 260–64, 133 S. C t . at 2283–85; Unite d State s v . Martine

z-Lope z , 864 F.3d 1034, 1038–39 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba nc ), c e rt. de nie d , __ U.S. __, 138 S. C t. 523, 199 L. Ed. 2d 400 (2017)
. 4indic ate d, in e ffe c t, tha t N av arro-Lope

z ha d be e n c o rre c t a ll a long. Se eDe sc amps , 570 U.S. a

t 277–78, 133 S. C t. at 2293. Thea bove c a se s show tha

t our la w on this issue wa s in a

sta te of flux. Gre e n wa s not obstruc te d from ta king a shot; heshould have fe lt e nc oura ge d to ta k e one . Se eHarrison , 519 F.3d a t 960–61. Thus, the distric t c o urt did not err whe n it de te rm ine d tha t it la c ke d jurisdic tion to gra nt
re lie f. AFFIRM ED.

5