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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 23 67

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ada m Jo se ph W in ars ke

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 Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__

__ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 18 , 20 18 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

14 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

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

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A da m Jos ep h W in ars ke ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s se co nd m ot ion 1

to va cat e hi s mand at or y m in im um fif te en -y ear se nt en ce un de r th e Arm ed Care er

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.Cri m in al Act (“ ACCA”)

, arg ui ng th at hi s pr io r Nor th Dak ot a bu rg lar y co nvi ct io ns are

no t “ vi ol en t fel on ie s” as de fin ed in th e ACCA. See 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). Rev ie win g th e de ni al of a su cces si ve m ot io n fo r rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 de n o v o , we affi rm

.

The ACCA de fin es “ vi ol en t fel on y ” to in cl ud e a fel on y th at “ is bu rg la ry , ars on ,

or ex to rti on [th e “ en um erat ed -o ffen se s c l a u s e ” ] or ot he rwis e in vo lv es co nd uc t th at

pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r [th e “ res id ua l cl au se ”].

18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s co ns tru ed th e

wor d “ bu rg la ry ” in it s ge ne ric se ns e, th at is

, as m ean in g “ an y cri m e, reg ard le ss of it s

ex act de fin it io n or la be l, ha vi ng th e ba si c el em en ts of un la wfu l or un pr iv il eg ed en try
in to
, or rem ai ni ng in

, a bu il di ng or st ru ct ur e, wit h in te nt to co m m it a cri m e.” Tay lo r

v. Uni te d S t at es , 49 5 U.S. 57 5, 59 9 (1 99 0)

. Und er th e ap pl ic ab le Nor th Dak ot a

st at ut e, a p ers on is gu il ty of fel on y bu rg la ry (Cl as s B or c la ss C) i f he -

wil lfu ll y e nt ers or su rrep ti ti ou sl y rem ai ns in a bu il di ng or oc cu pi ed

st ru ct ur e, or a se pa rat el y se cu red or oc cu pi ed po rti on th ereo f, whe n at th e ti m e th e pr em is es are no t op e n t o t h e pu bl ic an d th e act or is no t li cen se d, in vi te d, or ot he rwis e pr iv il eg ed to en te r or rem ai n as th e cas e

m ay be , wit h i nt en t t o c om m it a cri m e th erei n.

N.D. Cen t. Co de § 12 .1-2 2- 02 (1 ). “ Occu pi ed st ru ct ur e” is de fin ed to m ean “ a

st ru ct ur e or ve hi cl e [w]here any pe rs on li ve s or carri es on bu si ne ss or ot he r cal li ng ;

or [w]hic h is us ed fo r ov ern ig ht acco m m od at io n of pe rs on s

. . . reg ard le ss of whe th er

a p ers on is act ua ll y

pre se nt .” § 1 2.1 -2 2- 06 (4 ).

I n Mar ch 20 12

, W in ars ke pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on o f a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). The Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t

no te d th at W in ars ke ha d m or e th an se ve n pr i o r f el on y co nv ic ti on s, in cl ud in g fiv e bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s, an d st at ed th at he “ is an arm ed care er cri m in al .” At se nt en ci ng , W in ars ke di d no t ob

ject to th is de te rm in at io n. The di st ric t co ur t, no ti ng hi s “ m ul ti pl e

-2

-bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s,” fou nd th at W in ars ke ha d at l eas t t hr ee p rio r “ vi ol en t fe lo ny”

co nv ic ti on s an d im

po se d th e ACCA’s m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce of fif

te en y ears in pr is on

. W e affi rm ed th e co nv i c t i o n

. Uni te d St at es v. W in ars ke

, 71 5 F.3 d 10 63 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ), cert . den ie d, 4 72 U.S. 10 03 (20 14 ).

In Feb ru ary 20 15

, W in ars ke fil ed a m ot io n to va c at e hi s se nt en ce un de r 28

U.S.C. § 22 55

, arg ui ng th at he was im pr op erl y se nt en ced as an arm ed care er cri m in al
be cau se th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s rece nt de ci si on in Des cam ps v. Uni te d St at es , 57 0 U.S.

25 4 (2 01 3)

, es ta bl is he d th at Nor th Dak ot a’s bu rg la ry st at ut e cri m in al iz es m or e th an

ge ne ric bu rg la ry

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, co nc lu di ng (I) “ th e el em en ts
of W in ars ke ’s th ree cl as s C fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r bu rg la ry are th e sa m e as th os e of
th e ge ne ric de fin it io n of bu rg la ry ,” a n d (ii ) Des cam ps di d no t al te r th is an al y si s 2

be cau se th e el em en ts of cl as s C bu rg la ry “ are li st ed as an un di vi de d se t of el em en ts .”
Uni te d St at es v. W in ars ke

, No. 1: 11 -cr- 86 -1

, Ord er Den y in g

. . . Hab eas Rel ie f at 6- 7 (D.N.D. Jul y

14 , 20 15 ). W in ars ke di d n ot ap pe al th is rul in g.

I n J un e 20 16

, we gr an te d W in ars ke ’s ap pl ic at io n fo r au th or iz at io n to fi l e a

se co nd or su cces s i ve § 22 55 m ot io n to as se rt a cl ai m th at he was im pr op erl y

se nt en ced as an arm ed care er cri m in al

. Co ng res s ha s se ve rel y li m it e d s u c c e s s iv e § 22 55 m ot io ns fo r po st -co nv ic ti on r e l i e f

. We m ay no t au th or iz e su ch a m ot io n

un le ss it is ba se d o n “ a ne w r ul e of co ns ti tu ti on al la w, m ad e ret ro act iv e to cas es on

co ll at eral r e v i e w by th e Su pr em e Co ur t, th at was pr ev io us ly un av ai la bl e.” § 22 55 (h )(2 ). Here, W in ars ke ’s a p p li cat io n pr op erl y rel ie d on Jo hn so n v. Uni te d

St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51 (2 01 5)

, a de ci si on th e Su pr em e Co ur t m ad e ret ro act iv e to

ca s e s o n co ll at eral rev ie w in W el ch v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6 S. Ct

. 12 57 (2 01 6)

. Bu t
si m pl y ci ti ng a ne w ru le is no t en ou gh

. “ The ne w ru le m us t ha ve a ne xu s to th e rig ht

W he n W in ars ke was se nt en ced

, m an y cas es ha d he ld th at bu rg l a r y was a 2 vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e ACCA’s en um erat ed -o ffen se s cl au s e

. S ee, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. W eb st er, 63 6 F.3 d 91 6, 92 0 (8 t h C ir. 20 11 ) (Ma ry la nd bu rg la ry ); Uni te d St at es v. So nc zal la , 56 1 F .3d 84 2, 8 45 -4 6 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ) (Mi nn es ot a b ur gl ary).

-3

-as se rte d in th e mo t i o n

. ” Don ne ll v. Uni te d St at es , 82 6 F.3 d 10 14

, 10 16 (8 th Ci r.

20 16 )

. Thu s, ev en if au th or iz at io n was pr op erl y gr an te d, § 22 44 (b )(2 )(A) req ui res di sm is sa l of W in ars ke ’s s uc ces si ve m ot io n, un le ss th e cl ai m in fact rel ie s on a ne w

ru le of co ns ti tu ti on al la w, m ad e ret ro act i v e t o cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Su pr em e Co ur t, th at was pr ev io us ly u na va il ab le . S ee Walk er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 9 00

F.3 d 1 01 2, 1 01 4 & n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8)

.

Jo hn so n he ld th at th e ACC A ’s r es id ua l cl au se was vo id fo r va gu en es s. The

res id ua l cl au se was no t an is su e whe n W in ars ke was se nt en ced as an arm e d care er cri m in al

, or whe n he ch al le ng ed th at de te rm in at io n in hi s fir st § 22 55 m ot io n. Rat he r, th e qu es ti on was w he th er hi s cl as s C Nor th Dak ot a bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s were fo r

ge ne ric bu rg la ry an d th eref or e fel l with in th e ACCA’s en um erat ed -o ffen se s clau se

. In arg ui ng hi s se co nd § 22 55 m ot io n to th e di st ric t co ur t, W in ars ke ag ai n arg ue d th at
hi s bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s no lo ng er qu al ify as vi ol en t fel on ie s be cau se th ey do no t fal l
wit hi n th e en um erat ed of fen se s cl au se , rel y in g no w on Mat hi s v. Uni te d St at es , 13 6

S. Ct

. 22 43 (2 01 6)

, as well as Des c am ps

. The di st ric t co ur t ag ai n reject ed th is

arg um en t on th e mer i ts an d gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

. Uni te d St at es v.
W in ars ke , No. 1 :1 1- cr-8 6- 1, 2 01 7 WL 17 43 55 0 (D.N.D. May 4, 20 17 ).

On ap pe al

, W in ars ke arg ue s th at Mat hi s es ta bl is he d th at th e ph ras e “ bu il di ng

or oc cu pi ed st ru ct ur e” in Nor th Dak ot a’s bu rg la ry st at ut e se ts fo rth al te rn at iv e m ean s of co m m it ti ng th e of

fen se , no t al te rn at iv e el em en ts of di ffer en t of fen se s. The refo re, th e Nor th Dak ot a st at ut e is ov er b r o ad be cau se “ oc cu pi ed st ru ct ur e” is de fin ed to
in cl ud e ve hi cl es “ whe re an y pe rs on li ve s or carr ie s on bu si ne ss or ot he r cal li ng ,” an d

ge ne ric bu rg la ry

do es no t i nc lu de bu rg la ry of an y ve hi cl e. W e de cl in e to co ns id er 3

th e m eri ts of t hi s en um erat ed -o ffen se s- cl au se is su e fo r th ree r eas on s.

Th i s a ss ert io n is co nt rary to th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s rece nt de ci si on in Uni t e d 3
St at es v. St it t, 13 9 S. Ct

. 39 9 (2 01 8)

, whi ch m ay pu t in do ub t ou r de ci si on co ns tru in g th e Nor th Dak ot a bu rg la ry st at ut e in Uni te d Stat es v. Kinn ey , 88 8 F.3 d 36 0, 36 3- 65 (8 th Cir . 20 18 ). W e n eed no t d eci de th at is su e h ere.

-4

-F i r s t
, t h e ne w ru le in Jo hn so n ha s no ne xu s to th is cl ai m

. See 13 5 S. Ct

. at

25 63 (“ Tod ay ’s de ci si on do es no t cal l in to qu es ti on ap pl ic at io n of th e Act to th e fo ur

en um erat ed of

fen se s

. . . .”); St an le y v. Uni te d St at es , 82 7 F.3 d 56 2, 56 4 (7 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ th e so le ho ld in g of Jo hn so n is th at th e [ACCA’s] res id ua l cl au se is in va li d” ).

Seco nd

, ne it he r Mat hi s no r Des cam p s an no un ced “ a ne w ru le of la w, m ad e

ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Su pr em e Co ur t,” as § 22 55 (h )(2 ) an d § 22 44 (b )(2 )(A) req ui re. Rat he r, “ th es e de ci si on s are si m pl y th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s
la te st in te rp ret at io ns of t h e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch th e Co ur t ha s lo ng ap pl ie d in
de ci di ng whe th er a pr io r co nv ic ti on is an ACCA vi ol en t fel on y .” Mart in v. Uni te d

St at es , 90 4 F. 3 d 59 4, 59 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ), ci ti ng Mat hi s, 13 6 S. Ct

. at 22 57

, an d

Des cam ps , 5 70 U.S. a t 2 6 0

. Th i r d

, in de nyin g W in ars ke ’s f irs t § 22 55 m ot io n, th e di st ric t c o u r t h e l d th at hi s th ree cl as s C fel on y bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s fel l wit hi n th e ACCA’s en um erat ed of

fen se s cl au se

. “ A cl ai m pr es en te d in a se co nd or su cces si ve ha be as co rp us appl ic at io n un de r se ct io n 22 54 th at was pr es en te d in a pr io r ap pl ic at io n sh al l be di sm is se d.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(1 ); se e In re Bap ti st e, 82 8 F.3 d 13 37

, 13 39 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 6) , cit in g c as es ap pl y in g § 22 44 (b )(1 ) to su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io ns

.

Fo r th es e reas on s , t h e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed W in ars ke ’s su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Th e Ord er o f th e d is tri ct co ur t d at ed May 4, 20 17 , is affi rm ed

.

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

-5

-