Court Opinion

ID: 9369368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 17:00:33.718495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.635596
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 20-5115     Document: 010110810029      Date Filed: 02/08/2023      Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       February 8, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                         No. 20-5115
                                                (D.C. Nos. 4:20-CV-00239-TCK-JFJ &
  JAMES FRANKLIN BROOKS,                               4:08-CR-00061-TCK-1)
                                                             (N.D. Okla.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       James Brooks appeals the district court’s dismissal of a second motion under

 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his convictions for use of a deadly weapon during

 a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We exercise jurisdiction

 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

       In 2008, a jury convicted Mr. Brooks of two counts of Hobbs Act robbery,

 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); two counts of using a pistol during a crime of violence,

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 20-5115    Document: 010110810029        Date Filed: 02/08/2023      Page: 2

 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and one count of possessing a pistol and ammunition after a

 previous felony conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). This court affirmed Mr. Brooks’s

 conviction on direct appeal. See United States v. Brooks, 569 F.3d 1284, 1286

 (10th Cir. 2009). Mr. Brooks sought relief under § 2255, which the district court

 denied.

        In 2019, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Davis,

 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). In Davis, the Court held the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)

 was unconstitutionally vague.1 139 S. Ct. at 2323–24. We authorized a

 second § 2255 motion for Mr. Brooks to challenge his § 924(c) convictions under

 Davis. After Mr. Brooks filed his motion, the district court dismissed it and denied a

 certificate of appealability (COA). In so doing, it applied our holding in United

 States v. Melgar-Cabrera, 892 F.3d 1053, 1060 n.4 (10th Cir. 2018) that “Hobbs Act

 robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3).” Because

 Mr. Brooks’s conviction was a crime of violence under the elements clause

 of § 924(c)(3), not the residual clause, the district court concluded Davis did not

 affect its validity.

        1
          Section 924(c)(3) comprises two parts. Part A defines a “crime of violence”
 as a felony offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use
 of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).
 We refer to part A as the “elements clause.” See United States v. Baker, 49 F.4th
 1348, 1351 & n.2 (10th Cir. 2022). Part B defines a “crime of violence” as a felony
 offense “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.”
 Id. We refer to part B as the “residual clause.”

                                             2
Appellate Case: 20-5115    Document: 010110810029         Date Filed: 02/08/2023    Page: 3

       This court granted Mr. Brooks a COA on the following issue: “In light of the

 contention that Hobbs Act robbery can be accomplished by a threat to property, is

 Mr. Brooks’s conviction for Hobbs Act robbery considered a ‘crime of violence’

 under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)?” Order at 1 (July 6, 2021). We then abated this appeal,

 awaiting the decisions subsequently announced in United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct.

 2015 (2022), and United States v. Baker, 49 F.4th 1348 (10th Cir. 2022).

       In supplemental briefing, Mr. Brooks concedes that Taylor, which concerned

 use of a firearm in connection with attempted Hobbs Act robbery, 142 S. Ct. at 2020,

 does not alter the validity of his convictions for use of a firearm in connection with

 completed Hobbs Act robbery. Aplt. Suppl. Br. at 1. And in Baker, we confirmed

 the holding in Melgar-Cabrera that completed Hobbs Act Robbery is categorically a

 crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3). See 49 F.4th at 1356.

 Mr. Brooks acknowledges that, in light of Taylor and Baker, he “does not have a

 legal basis for asserting that this Court should not follow the precedent[i]al law in

 Melgar-Cabrera.” Aplt. Suppl. Br. at 5.

       We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Per Curiam

                                            3