Opinion ID: 3171608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Initial Arguments

Text: In his opening brief, Soto-Rivera argues that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not an offense that contains an element requiring the use, attempted use, or threat of the use of physical force against another. And, seemingly conceding that a conviction for the possession of a machinegun would qualify as a crime of violence, Soto-Rivera says that though a postconviction determination was made finding the gun to be a 'machine gun,' the crime of which he was actually convicted -- illegal possession of a firearm -- is not an offense involving a hazardous weapon. Accordingly, he argues that mere possession of a generic firearm does not qualify as a crime of violence under the residual clause because simply possessing a firearm does not pose a serious potential risk of injury to anyone. In rejoinder, the government says that Soto-Rivera's crime, although it doesn't contain the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force as an element, nevertheless involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another given that Soto-Rivera's firearm was a machinegun. The government, therefore, urges us to find that Soto-Rivera's offense - 11 - of conviction falls within the residual clause's rather expansive definition of a crime of violence.