Appellate Case: 21-4003 Document: 010110814422 Date Filed: 02/17/2023 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 17, 2023 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 21-4003 JOSEPH LEE CHATWIN, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. Nos. 2:16-CV-00932-RJS & 2:12-CR-00617-RJS-1) _________________________________ Benjamin C. McMurray, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Scott Keith Wilson, Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant-Appellant. Nathan H. Hack, Assistant United States Attorney (Andrea T. Martinez, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff- Appellee. _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, LUCERO, Senior Circuit Judge, and McHUGH, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ Appellate Case: 21-4003 Document: 010110814422 Date Filed: 02/17/2023 Page: 2 Joseph Lee Chatwin appeals the district court’s denial and dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1253, we reverse and remand. BACKGROUND In 2013, Chatwin pleaded guilty to two counts: (1) bank fraud (“Count 3”) and (2) using or carrying (and brandishing) a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (“Count 9”). As part of the plea agreement, the government recommended dismissal of seven other charged counts, and Chatwin waived any right to collaterally attack his sentence (though not his convictions). In 2016, Chatwin filed a pro se § 2255 motion challenging his § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) conviction and sentencing as unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2016) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague). As “supporting facts,” Chatwin simply wrote that “police chase not a violent crime.” R. vol. 1, at 9. The government moved to dismiss the § 2255 motion as insufficiently pleaded. Choosing not to address the merits of the motion, the government argued (1) that Chatwin had “knowingly and voluntarily waived his § 2255 rights in a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and that waiver is valid and enforceable;” and (2) that he had not filed his motion “within one year of the judgment” as required by § 2255(f)(1) and without an exception applying under 2 Appellate Case: 21-4003 Document: 010110814422 Date Filed: 02/17/2023 Page: 3 § 2255(f)(3). Id. at 86. The government “deferred for later briefing” “other defenses and merits arguments.” Id. at 87. In 2020, by then represented by counsel, Chatwin moved to amend his motion after the issuance of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019) (holding that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague). Though neither the plea agreement nor the plea colloquy stated whether the court based the § 924(c) conviction on § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause, § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause, or both, Chatwin contended that the district court relied solely on the residual clause (a question not yet resolved by the district court). From that, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals