# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 32 99

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ And rew J . Max ey
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 18 , 20 17 Fil ed : Ap ril 20 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

In 20 03 , An dr ew J. M a x e y pl ead ed gu il ty t o be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Bas ed on hi s pr io r Mi ss ou ri co nv ic ti on s fo r fo ur
co un ts of se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry an d se ve n co un ts of se c on d- de gr ee at te m pt edro bb ery, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Max ey qu al ifi ed fo r an en ha nc em en t un de r th e 1 Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act (“ ACCA”)

. Se e id

. § 92 4( e). The co ur t th en se nt en ced Max ey to th e res ul ti ng m an da to ry m in im um of 1 80 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t.

Nearl y th irt een y ears l a t e r, Max ey fil ed a m ot io n to co rrec t hi s se nt en ce pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 22 55 , cl ai m in g th at hi s ro bb ery an d bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s no lo ng er qu al ify as ACCA pr ed ic at e of fen se s in li gh t of th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es

. S e e 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51 , 25 57 (2 01 5) (in va li da ti ng th e ACCA’s res id ua l cl au se as un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e). The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th is

m ot io n, ho ld in g th at bo th se co nd -d eg r e e bu rg la ry an d se co nd -d eg ree at te m pt ed

ro bb ery rem ai n vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r th e fo rce cl au se of th e ACCA. On ap pe al , th e Gov ern m en t c o nc ed es th at Max ey ’s bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s no lo ng er qu al ify as pr ed ic at e of

fen se s in li gh t of bo th Jo hn so n a n d M a t h i s v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6 S. Ct

. 22 43 , 2 2 5 1 (2 01 6) (h ol di ng th at Io wa’s bu rg la ry of fen se di d no t qu al ify as vi ol en t fel on y ). Thu s, th e on ly is su e be fo re us is whe th er Mi ss ou ri se co nd -d eg ree at te m pt ed

ro bb ery st il l qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fel on y —a le ga l de te r mi n a t i o n th at we rev ie w de

no vo

. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Ea st in , 44 5 F .3d 10 19 , 10 21 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

The en ba nc co ur t res ol ve d th is pr eci se qu es ti on in Uni t e d St at es v. Sw op es

. 20 18 W L 15 25 82 5, at *1 (8 th Ci r. Ma r. 29 , 20 18 ) (en ba nc ). App lying th e fo rce cl au se of th e ACCA, we he ld th at Mi ss ou ri se co nd -d e g r e e r o bb ery qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t fel on y

. Se e id

. at *1 -3 (o ve rru li ng Uni te d St at e s v

. Bell , 84 0 F.3 d 96 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )). Thu s, we co nc lu de th at Max ey is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f, as hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r at te m pt ed ro bb ery are su f

f i c ie nt to qu al ify hi m as an arm ed care er cri m in al be cau se th is of

fen se “ ha s as an el em en t th e

. . . at te m pt ed us e

. . . us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t t he pe rs on of a no th er.” Se e 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 2) (B).

The Hon or ab le Dean W hi pp le , Un it ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e We s t e r n 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-2

-Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d en ia l o f Max ey ’s § 2 25 5 m ot io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-