PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ARCHIE MANZANARES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 18-2010 

_________________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico 

(D.C. Nos. 1:16-CV-00599-WJ-SMV & 1:12-CR-01563-WJ-1)

_________________________________ 

Margaret A. Katze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public 

Defender for the District of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, appearing for 

Appellant. 

C. Paige Messec, Assistant United States Attorney (John C. Anderson, United States 

Attorney, with her on the briefs), Office of the United States Attorney for the District of 

New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, appearing for Appellee. 

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. 

_________________________________ 

 Defendant-Appellant Archie Manzanares appeals from the district court’s denial 

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence under the Armed Career 

Criminal Act (ACCA). Because the district court granted a certificate of appealability 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 17, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

(COA) as to one issue, we exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm the 

denial of relief and deny Mr. Manzanares’s motion to expand the COA. 

I 

On April 1, 2013, Mr. Manzanares pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of 

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and to possession of a 

controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844. ROA, Vol. II at 11. His plea 

agreement provided for a 15-year sentence if the district court determined he was an 

armed career criminal. Id. at 12. On July 2, 2013, after concluding that Mr. Manzanares 

had at least three prior violent felonies and thus qualified as an armed career criminal, the 

district court imposed the 15-year sentence contemplated by the plea agreement. Id., Vol. 

IV at 5. 

Under the ACCA, an offense qualified as a violent felony by satisfying at least one 

of three definitions, which have come to be known as the Elements Clause, the 

Enumerated Clause, and the Residual Clause. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B); United 

States v. Garcia, 877 F.3d 944, 946 (10th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1257 

(2019). After Mr. Manzanares’s conviction was final, the Supreme Court invalidated the 

Residual Clause as being unconstitutionally vague, see Johnson v. United States, 135 S. 

Ct. 2551, 2557, 2563 (2015) (Johnson II), and then made Johnson II applicable to cases 

on collateral review, see Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1268 (2016). 

In his timely Johnson II-based § 2255 motion, Mr. Manzanares asserted that 

without the Residual Clause, his underlying New Mexico convictions (armed 

robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and aggravated battery) no longer 
3 

qualified as violent felonies. The district court denied the motion, concluding that all 

three underlying convictions satisfy the Elements Clause. ROA, Vol. I at 184. It 

then granted a COA regarding the armed robbery conviction but denied a COA as to 

the other two convictions.1

 Id. at 186–87. Mr. Manzanares appeals the classification of 

the armed robbery conviction as a violent felony, and he seeks to expand the COA to 

allow him to appeal the decision regarding the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon 

and aggravated battery convictions. 

II 

The district court granted a COA on the issue of whether armed robbery in 

violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-2 satisfies the Elements Clause. We review the 

district court’s legal rulings on a § 2255 motion de novo and its findings of fact for 

clear error. Garcia, 877 F.3d at 947–48. Whether a prior conviction satisfies the 

ACCA’s violent felony definition is a legal question we review de novo. Id. at 948. 

The government bears the burden of proving a prior conviction qualifies under the 

ACCA. Id.

 1

 The district court did not require Mr. Manzanares to show that the Residual 

Clause played a role in his sentencing. See United States v. Snyder, 871 F.3d 1122, 

1130 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming denial of relief where the defendant was sentenced 

under the Enumerated Clause, rather than the Residual Clause). We need not 

determine what effect the Residual Clause had at sentencing, however, because any 

error in applying the Residual Clause would be harmless, as the government has 

shown that Mr. Manzanares has three convictions that qualify as violent felonies 

under the Elements Clause. See United States v. Driscoll, 892 F.3d 1127, 1135–36 

(10th Cir. 2018) (stating a Johnson II error would be harmless if the defendant has 

three valid predicate convictions to support an ACCA sentence). 
4 

To determine this issue, we apply the “categorical approach,” focusing on the 

elements of the crime of conviction, not the underlying facts. Id. The Elements Clause 

provides that a conviction is a “violent felony” if it “has as an element the use, 

attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” 

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). “[T]he phrase ‘physical force’ means violent force—

that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” Johnson 

v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010) (Johnson I) (emphasis in original). 

We must first identify the minimum “force” required by state law for the crime of 

conviction, and second determine if that force categorically fits the definition of physical 

force. United States v. Ontiveros, 875 F.3d 533, 535–36 (10th Cir. 2017). “When 

construing the minimum culpable conduct required for a conviction, such conduct only 

includes that in which there is a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, the state 

statute would apply.” Id. at 536 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-16-2 provides as follows: 

Robbery consists of the theft of anything of value from the person of 

another or from the immediate control of another, by use or threatened use 

of force or violence. 

Whoever commits robbery is guilty of a third degree felony. 

Whoever commits robbery while armed with a deadly weapon is, for the 

first offense, guilty of a second degree felony and, for second and 

subsequent offenses, is guilty of a first degree felony. 

After the district court issued its decision in this case, this court decided 

Garcia, where we considered whether a conviction for third degree robbery under the 

same New Mexico robbery statute qualified as a violent felony under the Elements 
5 

Clause. We held that third degree robbery “categorically matches the definition of 

‘physical force’ the Supreme Court assigned in Johnson I” as it “has an element the 

use or threatened use of physical force against another person.” Garcia, 877 F.3d at 

956. In concluding that robbery under § 30-16-2 “is a violent felony under the 

ACCA’s Elements Clause,” id., we emphasized that the “mere[] snatching [of 

property] without any resistance from the victim would not” satisfy “the element of 

force for robbery” under the New Mexico statute, id. at 954 (citing State v. Curley, 

939 P.2d 1103, 1105 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997)) (concluding that “when no more force is 

used than would be necessary to remove property from a person who does not resist, then 

the offense is larceny, and not robbery”). 

After Garcia was decided, the Supreme Court decided Stokeling v. United 

States, 139 S. Ct. 544, 550 (2019), which held that the ACCA’s Elements Clause 

“encompasses robbery offenses that require the criminal to overcome the victim’s 

resistance.” After issuing Stokeling, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Garcia. 

See Garcia v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1257 (2019). 

The government contends Stokeling and Garcia control the outcome in this 

case. Mr. Manzanares responds that Garcia was wrongly decided and that New 

Mexico robbery does not have as an element the use of physical force as described by 

Stokeling. We agree with the government that Stokeling and Garcia are controlling. 

We acknowledge “[w]e cannot overrule the judgment of another panel of this 

court. We are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a 

superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court.” In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 
6 

(10th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Further, “when a panel of this Court has rendered a 

decision interpreting state law, that interpretation is binding on . . . subsequent panels of 

this Court, unless an intervening decision of the state’s highest court has resolved the 

issue.” Wankier v. Crown Equip. Corp., 353 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2003). 

Garcia held that a conviction for simple robbery under § 30-16-2 satisfies the 

Elements Clause, and, as Mr. Manzanares concedes, interpreted the statute to require 

force that overcomes the victim’s resistance. See Aplt. Br. at 21 (“As the Garcia panel 

acknowledged, numerous New Mexico cases expressly state that ‘any quantum of force 

which overcomes resistance would be sufficient to support a robbery conviction.’”) 

(citing Garcia, 877 F.3d at 956). If simple robbery satisfies the Elements Clause, then 

necessarily armed robbery under the same statute would satisfy the Elements Clause. We 

are bound by Garcia’s interpretation of the New Mexico robbery statute, and we are 

unpersuaded by Mr. Manzanares’s arguments urging us to reconsider its holdings. 

 First, Stokeling is not a superseding contrary Supreme Court decision. Rather than 

undermining Garcia’s result, Stokeling compels it. Stokeling holds that the amount of 

force sufficient to overcome a victim’s resistance satisfies Johnson I’s force standard. 

139 S. Ct. at 555; see also United States v. Ash, 917 F.3d 1238, 1242 (10th Cir. 2019), 

cert. filed, No. 18-9639 (June 12, 2019) (noting, after Stokeling, that “[t]he line is drawn, 

therefore, between robbery that can be accomplished by the mere snatching of property 

and robbery that requires overcoming even slight victim resistance”). And, as interpreted 

in Garcia, New Mexico’s robbery statute distinguishes “robbery” from “larceny” using a 

nearly identical standard as Stokeling: “[R]obbery is committed when attached property is 
7 

snatched or grabbed by sufficient force so as to overcome the resistance of attachment,” 

Curley, 939 P.2d at 1105, but it is not committed by a “mere[] snatching . . . without any 

resistance from the victim,” Garcia, 877 F.3d at 954. See also State v. Martinez, 513 

P.2d 402, 402 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973) (affirming robbery conviction where “there was 

more than a ‘mere snatching’”); State v. Sanchez, 430 P.2d 781, 782 (N.M. Ct. App. 

1967) (stating that the force used “must overcome the victim’s resistance” and reversing 

a robbery conviction because facts were “comparable to those pickpocket or purse 

snatching cases”). 

 To be sure, in Ash, we noted that the standard applied in Garcia was 

“arguably . . . different” than the standard applied by the Supreme Court in Stokeling. 

917 F.3d at 1242 n.5. That is, rather than determining only whether New Mexico robbery 

requires force to overcome a victim’s resistance, Garcia drew a different line: whether 

the New Mexico statute requires “the use of any physical force” to overcome the victim’s 

resistance or something “more than minimal actual force.” 877 F.3d at 950 (emphasis in 

original). But Stokeling held that either of these readings of New Mexico law would 

satisfy Johnson I, concluding that any “force necessary to overcome a victim’s physical 

resistance is inherently ‘violent’ in the sense contemplated by Johnson.” 139 S. Ct. at 

553. Thus, Stokeling does not undermine Garcia’s result.2

 2

 Mr. Manzanares also relies on our post-Stokeling decision in United States v. 

Bong, 913 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2019), but Bong involved a different state statute than 

the one at issue here. In Bong, we concluded that a conviction under Kansas’s robbery 

statute did not qualify as a violent felony because Kansas law, in contrast with that of 

New Mexico, permits a defendant to be convicted of violating the statute without any 
8 

 Moreover, because there has been no intervening change in state law, we are 

bound by Garcia’s interpretation of New Mexico’s robbery statute. See Wankier, 353 

F.3d at 866. Mr. Manzanares argues that a post-Garcia state law decision, State v. 

Barela, No. A-1-CA-34945, 2018 WL 4959122, at *2 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018), 

illustrates that New Mexico robbery can be perpetrated without any use, attempted use, or 

explicit threats of force. Aplt. Rep. Br. at 5. In Barela, the New Mexico Court of 

Appeals upheld the defendant’s robbery conviction because the evidence showed the 

defendant had uttered threats of violence, which satisfied the state’s obligation to show 

that the defendant took the purse by threatened force or violence. See id. Because Barela

required a threatened use of violence to uphold a robbery conviction, it likewise does not 

undermine Garcia.

3

 

resistance by or injury to the victim. 913 F.3d at 1262, 1264. In other words, Kansas 

robbery falls on the other side of the “snatching” line. 

3

 Even if we were not bound by Garcia’s interpretation of New Mexico’s 

robbery statute, we would conclude that the statute, as applied by New Mexico 

courts, requires force that overcomes the victim’s resistance rather than the mere 

snatching of property. See Curley, 939 P.2d at 1105; Martinez, 513 P.2d at 402; 

Sanchez, 430 P.2d at 782; see also State v. Bernal, 146 P.3d 289, 296 (N.M. 2006) 

(noting that robbery is “distinct from larceny because it requires, and is designed to 

punish, the element of force”). Mr. Manzanares, however, points to State v. Clokey, 

553 P.2d 1260, 1260 (N.M. 1976), where the New Mexico Supreme Court held that 

“the evidence supported the verdict of the jury that the snatching of the purse was 

accompanied by force sufficient to convert the crime from larceny to robbery.” But 

the New Mexico Court of Appeals, in its post-Clokey decisions, has not interpreted 

Clokey as requiring an amount of force less than necessary to overcome a victim’s 

resistance. See, e.g., Curley, 939 P.2d at 1105 (noting that “the issue in [Clokey] was 

not whether there was evidence justifying a lesser-included-offense instruction [of 

larceny]”). 
9 

 Given Stokeling’s holding that force which overcomes a victim’s resistance is 

violent force, and Garcia’s holding that New Mexico’s robbery statute requires that level 

of force, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Manzanares’s New Mexico 

armed robbery conviction satisfies the Elements Clause. 

III 

Mr. Manzanares has also moved to expand the COA to address his other two 

underlying prior convictions. A COA requires “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), meaning that Mr. Manzanares “must 

demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

A 

 One of Mr. Manzanares’s prior convictions is for aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-2(A). Under N.M. Stat. Ann. 

§ 30-3-2(A), “[a]ggravated assault consists of . . . unlawfully assaulting or striking at 

another with a deadly weapon.” This court has twice held that § 30-3-2(A) satisfies 

the Elements Clause. See United States v. Maldonado-Palma, 839 F.3d 1244, 1250 

(10th Cir. 2016) (holding § 30-3-2(A) is categorically a crime of violence under the 

Elements Clause of United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2);4 United States 

 4

 Given the “similarity in language between the ACCA and [the Sentencing 

Guidelines]” defining “violent felony” and “crime of violence,” respectively, we may 

“look[ ] to precedent under one provision for guidance under another in determining 

whether a conviction qualifies as a violent felony.” Ramon Silva, 608 F.3d at 671 

(quotations omitted). 
10 

v. Ramon Silva, 608 F.3d 663, 674 (10th Cir. 2010) (holding § 30-3-2(A) is categorically 

a violent felony under the Elements Clause), abrogated on other grounds by Mathis v. 

United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). 

 Mr. Manzanares argues that Maldonado-Palma and Ramon Silva were wrongly 

decided and that they are undermined by a subsequent New Mexico Court of Appeals 

decision, State v. Branch, 417 P.3d 1141 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018) (Branch II), because 

Branch II holds that aggravated assault does not require a specific intent to use a 

deadly weapon “against the person of another.” But Branch II’s holding that 

aggravated assault is a general-intent crime did not alter the state of the law. Rather, 

as Ramon Silva recognized, “aggravated assault does not require proof of a specific 

intent to assault the victim, or of a specific intent to injure or even frighten the 

victim[; thus confirming] that aggravated assault is not a specific intent crime, but 

rather is a general intent crime.” 608 F.3d at 673 (brackets, citations, and internal 

quotation marks omitted). The offense is a violent felony because it requires 

“unlawfully assaulting or striking at another,” § 30-3-2(A), employing a deadly 

weapon, Maldonado-Palma, 839 F.3d at 1250, with general criminal intent, see 

Ramon Silva, 608 F.3d at 673, all of which we have held at least threaten the use of 

physical force against the person of another. Given this court’s binding precedent, no 

reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Manzanares’s 

New Mexico conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon satisfies the 

Elements Clause. 
11 

B 

Mr. Manzanares’s other prior conviction is for aggravated battery, in violation of 

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-5(C). N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-5 states: 

A. Aggravated battery consists of the unlawful touching or 

application of force to the person of another with intent to 

injure that person or another. 

B. Whoever commits aggravated battery, inflicting an injury 

to the person which is not likely to cause death or great bodily 

harm, but does cause painful temporary disfigurement or 

temporary loss or impairment of the functions of any member 

or organ of the body, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 

C. Whoever commits aggravated battery inflicting great 

bodily harm or does so with a deadly weapon or does so in 

any manner whereby great bodily harm or death can be 

inflicted is guilty of a third degree felony. 

 Mr. Manzanares argues that a conviction under § 30-3-5(C) does not 

categorically require Johnson I-level force because “New Mexico aggravated battery 

is focused on the resulting harm to the person[,] not the force behind the unlawful 

touching.” Aplt. Br. at 57. For this proposition, Mr. Manzanares relies on United 

States v. Perez-Vargas, 414 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2005), and United States v. 

Rodriguez-Enriquez, 518 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2008). Aplt. Br. at 54. 

However, we expressly overruled Rodriguez-Enriquez and Perez-Vargas in 

United States v. Ontiveros, 875 F.3d 533, 536 (10th Cir. 2017), citing and relying on 

the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014). 

The Supreme Court in Castleman “specifically rejected the contention that ‘one can 

cause bodily injury without the use of physical force.’” Ontiveros, 875 F.3d at 536 
12 

(quoting Castleman, 572 U.S. at 170). Thus, in Ontiveros, we concluded that 

Colorado second-degree assault is a crime of violence, even though the crime’s 

elements “focus on the result of the conduct (serious bodily injury), not the conduct 

itself.” Id. (holding that “Perez-Vargas and Rodriguez-Enriquez relied on reasoning 

that is no longer viable in light of Castleman”). Mr. Manzanares contends that 

Rodriguez-Enriquez and Perez-Vargas “should remain binding precedent,” Aplt. Br. 

at 57, but we are bound by Ontiveros and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Castleman. 

The district court’s conclusion that Mr. Manzanares’s conviction under § 30-3-5(C) 

satisfies the Elements Clause is not reasonably debatable. 

IV 

 We affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Manzanares’s § 2255 motion, deny 

his motion to expand the COA, and deny as moot the government’s motion for 

summary affirmance.