United States v. Madrid

6 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. United States v. Snyder, 2017 WL 1149077 (March 28, 2017) (WY)

    Federal Public Defender Office, District of New MexicoShari AllisonApril 3, 2017

    In a terse opinion, the panel says that after Beckles, a conviction for voluntary manslaughter is a crime of violence as defined in USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause. It pointed out that Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204, was “partially abrogated” by Beckles. It also noted that the guidelines are not vulnerable to a Due Process challenge because Beckles said “the advisory guidelines do not fix the permissible range of sentences . . . .they merely guide the exercise of a court’s discretion in choosing an appropriate sentence within the statutory range.”

  2. Assessing the Impact of Johnson v. United States on the Void-for- Vagueness Doctrine

    University of North Carolina School of LawCarissa HessickOctober 24, 2016

    A number of circuits have disagreed and held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are subject to a vagueness attack. See United States v. Hurlbert, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 4506717 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016) (en banc); United States v. Sheffield, 832 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2016); United States v. Pawlak, 822 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. Townsend, 638 F. App’x 172 (3d Cir. 2015). A number of courts did not weigh in on this issue, but simply assumed that the guideline is vague based on the concession from the government.

  3. A Not-so-Little Change in Constructive Possession Law

    Federal Public Defender Office, District of New MexicoShari AllisonSeptember 29, 2016

    Although Little will not receive a third trial, he will be resentenced. Following the decision in United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015), the government agreed that Little’s prior New Mexico convictions for battery on a peace officer should not have been considered crimes of violence for purposes of the sentencing guidelines, and his sentence was therefore improperly enhanced.

  4. Pattern Tenth Circuit Jury Instructions on Constructive Possession, Deliberate Ignorance Erroneously Given

    Federal Public Defender Office, District of New MexicoShari AllisonSeptember 2, 2016

    It was not clear whether the district court relied on the use of force definition or the residual clause contained in the career offender guideline, which is the relevant definition of "crime of violence" for purposes of 2K2.1. The government conceded on appeal that, following Johnson v. US, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), and US v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015), reliance on the residual clause of the career offender guideline was error. Accordingly, the panel remanded for resentencing.

  5. Into the Morass: Beware Enumerated "Commentary Offenses"

    Kansas Federal Public DefenderPaige A. NicholsDecember 28, 2015

    It defines "crimes of violence" that trigger the guideline as "any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that—(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or(2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (stricken language unconstitutional under United States v. Madrid, 805 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2015)).When asking whether a prior conviction matches a predicate offense, courts will compare the prior’s elements either to (1) the elements of the force-clause, in which case the prior must contain an element of physical force (actual violence, either used, attempted, or threatened), against the person of another (force against property won’t do here); or to (2) the generic elements of an enumerated offense (more on generic elements later).

  6. Tenth Circuit: Career Offender Residual Clause Void for Vagueness

    Kansas Federal Public DefenderPaige A. NicholsNovember 2, 2015

    Because the Guidelines are the beginning of all sentencing determinations, and in light of the “unavoidable uncertainty and arbitrariness of adjudication under the residual clause,” Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2562, we hold that the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2) is void for vagueness.United States v. Madrid, No. 14-2159 (10th Cir. Nov. 2, 2015) (holding further that Mr. Madrid's prior statutory-rape conviction from Texas was neither a force-clause offense nor an enumerated forcible sex offense).