Opinion ID: 4570269
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Text: Ybarra next argues his New Mexico conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is not a predicate offense for purposes of the ACCA because the crime does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. This argument is also foreclosed by this court’s precedent. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-2(A) is defined as “unlawfully assaulting or striking at another with a deadly weapon.” Simple assault can be committed in one of three ways: (1) attempting to commit a battery upon the person of another, (2) engaging in any unlawful act, threat, or menacing conduct which causes another person to reasonably believe he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery, or (3) using insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-1. In United States v. Maldonado-Palma, this court held that all three methods of violating N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-2(A) are categorically crimes of violence for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines because the “key element” of the crime of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, regardless of how the assault is committed, is the use of a deadly weapon. 1 839 F.3d 1244, 1 Although Maldonado-Palma involved the definition of crime-of-violence for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines, we look to the Guidelines for guidance (continued...) -6- 1250 (10th Cir. 2016). In reaching this conclusion, Maldonado-Palma addressed and rejected the argument made here by Ybarra that a defendant can be convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon if he simply possesses the weapon while using insulting language toward another person. Id. And, in United States v. Ramon Silva, this court rejected Ybarra’s alternative argument that the crime is not a violent felony because it does not require “proof of a specific intent to assault the victim, or of a specific intent to injure or even frighten the victim.” 608 F.3d 663, 674 (10th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016); see also Manzanares, 956 F.3d at 1227 (rejecting the argument, also made here by Ybarra, that the holding in Ramon Silva is contrary to New Mexico law). Recognizing that Maldonado-Palma compels the conclusion his New Mexico conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is a predicate offense under the ACCA, Ybarra asks us to “reexamine” Maldonado-Palma. This panel, however, is “bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court.” Leatherwood v. Allbaugh, 861 F.3d 1034, 1042 n.6 (10th Cir. 2017) (quotation 1 (...continued) “in determining whether a conviction qualifies as a violent felony” because of “the similarity in language between the ACCA and [Guidelines].” United States v. Ramon Silva, 608 F.3d 663, 671 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). -7- omitted). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it enhanced Ybarra’s sentence based on his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.