Court Opinion

ID: 9944963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 19:00:51.579843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:06.919007
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-2128     Document: 010111005334         Date Filed: 02/26/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           February 26, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Respondent - Appellee,

  v.                                                           No. 23-2128
                                                   (D.C. Nos. 1:22-CV-00588-JB-JFR &
  KEVIN FOLSE,                                          1:15-CR-02485-JB-JFR-1)
                                                                 (D. N.M.)
        Petitioner - Appellant.
                         _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
                    _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        This court has previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Defendant

 Kevin Folse in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on four

 counts of an indictment: one count of felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C.

 §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); two counts of carjacking, see 18 U.S.C. § 2119; and one

 count of using, carrying, possessing, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to

 and in furtherance of one of the charged carjackings, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See United

 States v. Folse, 854 F. App’x 276, 278–79 (10th Cir. 2021). Now serving that sentence in

 a federal prison in Florida, Defendant has moved for relief in New Mexico federal district

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
 res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
 consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-2128      Document: 010111005334           Date Filed: 02/26/2024      Page: 2

 court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to set aside his conviction and sentence under

 § 924(c).

        On June 30, 2023, the district court denied Defendant’s motion, denied a

 certificate of appealability (COA), see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring COA to

 appeal denial of relief under § 2255), and entered final judgment. Defendant now

 requests a COA from this court. We deny the request and dismiss the appeal.

        A court may issue a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

 the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires the

 applicant to show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree

 that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues

 presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.

 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words,

 Defendant must show that the district court’s resolution of the constitutional claim was

 either “debatable or wrong.” Id. He has not made that showing.

        To be convicted and sentenced under § 924(c), a defendant must “during and in

 relation to any crime of violence . . . for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of

 the United States, use[] or carr[y] a firearm, or . . . , in furtherance of any such crime,

 possess[] a firearm” (emphasis added). Section 924(c)(3) defines crime of violence as:

        an offense that is a felony and—

               (A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
               physical force against the person or property of another, or

                                             Page 2
Appellate Case: 23-2128      Document: 010111005334          Date Filed: 02/26/2024         Page: 3

               (B) that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force
               against the person or property of another may be used in the course of
               committing the offense.

 In United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), however, the United States Supreme

 Court held that the language of alternative (B) is unconstitutionally vague. Defendant

 therefore argues that his carjacking offense cannot be a crime of violence under

 § 924(c)(3) and his conviction under § 924(c) must be set aside.

        But what about alternative (A)? If the elements of carjacking satisfy that

 alternative, then carjacking is a crime of violence regardless of the constitutionality of

 alternative (B). To prove carjacking, the government must show that the accused “with

 the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm takes a motor vehicle that has been

 transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or

 presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so.” 18

 U.S.C. § 2119. We think it clear that this offense “has as an element the use, attempted

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

 § 924(c)(3)(A). Certainly, taking a motor vehicle from another person “by force and

 violence” requires the use of physical force against the person. And we agree with the

 other circuits to consider the issue that intimidation in the federal carjacking statute

 necessarily means threatened use of violent physical force. See United States v. Cruz-

 Rivera, 904 F.3d 63, 66 (1st Cir. 2018); United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57, 79–80 (2d

 Cir. 2021); United States v. Lowe, No. 20-1311, 2020 WL 4582606, at *1 (3d Cir. July 9,

 2020) (unpublished); United States v. Evans, 848 F.3d 242, 247–48 (4th Cir. 2017);

 United States v. Jones, 854 F.3d 737, 740–41 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Jackson,

                                            Page 3
Appellate Case: 23-2128     Document: 010111005334        Date Filed: 02/26/2024     Page: 4

 918 F.3d 467, 485–86 (6th Cir. 2019); Estell v. United States, 924 F.3d 1291, 1293 (8th

 Cir. 2019); United States v. Gutierrez, 876 F.3d 1254, 1256–57 (9th Cir. 2017); In re

 Smith, 829 F.3d 1276, 1280–81 (11th Cir. 2016); cf. United States v. McCranie, 889 F.3d

 677, 680–81 (10th Cir. 2018) (bank robbery “by force and violence, or by intimidation,”

 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), is a crime of violence under § 924(c)). No reasonable jurist could

 argue that there was error in Defendant’s being convicted under § 924(c).

       We DENY Defendant’s request for a COA and dismiss this case. We GRANT

 Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 1

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Harris L Hartz
                                              Circuit Judge

       1
           Judge Rossman concurs in the result.
                                           Page 4