Julian Sandoval-Flores was indicted for multiple counts of attempted murder and for violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) by using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. He pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder and one count of § 924(c), waiving his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction or sentence in exchange for the government dropping other charges and agreeing not to prosecute his son. He was sentenced to 450 months, later reduced to 385 months. Following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, which invalidated the residual clause of § 924(c) as unconstitutionally vague, Sandoval-Flores sought authorization to file a second-or-successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argued that his conviction should be set aside because the trial court improperly ruled that attempted murder qualified as a crime of violence under the residual clause. The district court denied the motion, finding the waiver enforceable and concluding that the defendant failed to prove the sentencing court relied on the residual clause.
The Tenth Circuit addressed two primary issues: the enforceability of the collateral-attack waiver and whether the defendant proved the sentencing court relied on the residual clause. First, the court affirmed that the waiver in the plea agreement was valid and enforceable, precluding the defendant from arguing that attempted murder qualifies as a crime of violence under the statute's elements clause. Second, the court analyzed whether the defendant met his burden of proving that the sentencing court relied on the unconstitutional residual clause. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a crime of violence is defined by either an elements clause or a residual clause. The Supreme Court in Davis invalidated the residual clause but left the elements clause intact. The defendant argued that his conviction was based on the residual clause. The court explained that to succeed, the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the sentencing court relied on the residual clause. This can be shown by referencing the sentencing record or the background legal environment at the time of sentencing. The court found no mention of the residual clause in the sentencing record. Regarding the background legal environment, the court noted that attempted murder has consistently been treated as a crime of violence under the elements clause in various circuits. The court observed that the law regarding attempted murder as a crime of violence has not materially changed since the defendant's sentencing in 2001. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant failed to establish that the sentencing court more likely than not relied on the residual clause.
The decision affirms the district court's denial of Sandoval-Flores's § 2255 motion, leaving his conviction and sentence intact. It reinforces the enforceability of collateral-attack waivers in plea agreements and clarifies the burden on defendants seeking to challenge § 924(c) convictions post-Davis. The ruling confirms that attempted murder satisfies the elements clause of § 924(c) and that defendants must provide specific evidence that the residual clause was the basis for sentencing enhancements.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download