United States v. Muskett

Summary

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Donovan Muskett’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) after United States v. Davis invalidated the statute’s residual clause. The court held that assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause. The court also concluded that applying the relevant precedent did not violate Muskett’s due process right to fair notice.

Holdings

1. Assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) categorically requires the attempted or threatened use of physical force capable of causing physical pain or injury and therefore qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)'s elements clause.
2. Applying Castleman and Ontiveros to Muskett's conviction did not violate the Fifth Amendment's fair-warning requirement because it was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the offense that assault with a dangerous weapon could qualify under the elements clause.
3. Muskett was not entitled to vacatur of his conviction because, although the government conceded that the conviction rested on § 924(c)'s invalid residual clause, the predicate offense independently satisfied the still-valid elements clause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether assault with a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)'s elements clause.
2. Whether applying the post-offense interpretations in United States v. Castleman and United States v. Ontiveros to Muskett's conviction violated due process because the interpretation allegedly enlarged criminal liability without fair notice.
3. Whether Muskett was entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after the government conceded that his conviction rested on § 924(c)'s invalid residual clause.

Disposition

affirmed