Court Opinion

ID: 9959744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:00:40.595877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:51.723951
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-4061     Document: 010111031151         Date Filed: 04/12/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                              April 12, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                             Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                 Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                            No. 23-4061
                                                     (D.C. Nos. 2:16-CV-00710-DAK &
  DANIEL CARD,                                            2:99-CR-00674-DAK-1)
                                                                  (D. Utah)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

             ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
                    _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                     _________________________________

        Petitioner Daniel Card requests a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to challenge

 the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 application.1 We deny his request

 for a COA and dismiss the matter. We also grant Petitioner’s counsel’s motion to

 withdraw.

        *
          This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
        1
         Petitioner’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
 (1967). An Anders brief is appropriate where—as here—a client instructs his appointed
 counsel in a habeas proceeding to raise a frivolous claim. See, e.g., Miles v. Dorsey,
 61 F.3d 1459, 1478 n.19 (10th Cir. 1995).
Appellate Case: 23-4061      Document: 010111031151          Date Filed: 04/12/2024      Page: 2

                                               I.

        A federal jury found Petitioner guilty of two counts of armed credit union robbery

 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and two counts of carrying a firearm during a

 credit union robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).2 The district court sentenced

 Petitioner to 406 months in prison and five years of supervised release. We affirmed

 Petitioner’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal.3 United States v. Card, 46 F.

 App’x 941, 948 (10th Cir. 2002).

        Petitioner filed his first § 2255 petition in 2012, and the district court denied the

 motion as untimely and denied Petitioner a COA. United States v. Card, 2:12-cv-883 (D.

 Utah Feb. 6, 2013). We also denied Petitioner a COA. United States v. Card, 534 F.

 App’x. 765, 768 (10th Cir. 2013). The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Card v. United

 States, 571 U.S. 1183 (2014). Petitioner sought permission to file a successive § 2255

 petition based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591

 (2015), which we granted. United States v. Card, No. 16-4079 (10th Cir. Nov. 27, 2019).

        Accordingly, Petitioner filed the instant successive § 2255 petition to vacate his

 § 924(c) convictions. The district court dismissed Petitioner’s motion and denied his

 request for a COA. Petitioner now requests from us a COA to appeal the district court’s

 dismissal.

        2
          Petitioner also received a conviction on two counts of possession of a firearm by
 a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), but Petitioner does not challenge these
 convictions.
        3
         Petitioner also directly appealed his conviction in 2014; we dismissed the appeal
 as untimely. United States v. Card, No. 14-4049 (10th Cir. May 8, 2014).
                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-4061      Document: 010111031151           Date Filed: 04/12/2024      Page: 3

                                               II.

        To receive a COA, Petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a

 constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C.

 § 2253(c)(2)). A petitioner makes such a showing if he demonstrates “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)

 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, 893 n.4 (1983)).

        Petitioner argues that we should vacate his § 924(c) convictions because § 924(c)

 applies only to crimes of violence, and Petitioner alleges his credit union robberies cannot

 constitute crimes of violence pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Davis v. United

 States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). For a jury to convict Petitioner under § 924(c), the jury

 must find that Petitioner committed a “crime of violence.”4 Section 924(c)(3) provides

 two definitions by which a felony qualifies as a crime of violence. First, a felony

 qualifies as a crime of violence if an element requires “the use, attempted use, or

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

 § 924(c)(3)(A) (“elements clause”). Alternatively, a felony qualifies as a crime of

 violence if it, “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.”

 § 924(c)(3)(B) (“residual clause”). But in Davis, the Supreme Court held that the

        4
          Section 924(c) also applies to “drug trafficking crime[s],” but neither party has
 alleged that this provision relates to Petitioner’s § 924(c) conviction.
                                                3
Appellate Case: 23-4061     Document: 010111031151         Date Filed: 04/12/2024     Page: 4

 residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. 129 S. Ct. at 2323. Petitioner thus argues

 that we should vacate his § 924(c) convictions.

        We disagree. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the jury convicted him based on

 the residual clause rather than the elements clause. To the contrary, the credit union

 robbery convictions which underly Petitioner’s § 924(c) convictions are categorically

 crimes of violence under the elements clause: in finding Petitioner guilty, the jury found

 beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner had “either assaulted one or more persons by

 the use of a dangerous weapon, or put one or more persons’ lives in jeopardy by the use

 of a dangerous weapon.” Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish that reasonable

 jurists could debate whether the district court should have resolved his § 2255 petition

 differently. So we deny Petitioner a COA and do not reach the merits of his petition. We

 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

        MATTER DISMISSED.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Joel M. Carson III
                                              Circuit Judge

                                              4