United States v. Sandoval-Flores.
No. 23-4019. 3/6/2026. D.Utah. Judge Hartz. Sentence Enhancement—18 USC § 924(c)—28 USC § 2255 Motion—Crime of Violence.
March 6, 2026
Sandoval-Flores fired on several law enforcement officers, shooting one officer in the chest and head. He was indicted on several charges, including multiple counts of attempted murder and of violating 18 USC § 924(c) by using a firearm in relation to a “crime of violence.” Under a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder and one count under § 924(c) (in which the predicate crime of violence was attempted murder), and he waived future collateral attacks on his conviction or sentence. In exchange, the government dropped other charges against him and agreed to not bring charges against his son for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, perjury, or obstruction of justice. Notwithstanding his collateral-attack waiver, Sandoval-Flores has repeatedly sought relief under 28 USC § 2255. Following United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019), in which the Supreme Court invalidated the residual clause at 18 USC § 924(c)(3)(B) as unconstitutionally vague, the Tenth Circuit authorized Sandoval-Flores to file a second-or-successive § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence on that basis, leaving to the district court to consider the merits of his motion to vacate, including the “existence or applicability of any plea-agreement waiver.” The district court concluded that the collateral-attack waiver in the plea agreement barred any relief. It held that Sandoval-Flores failed to satisfy § 2255(h)’s requirements by not showing that the sentencing court relied on the residual clause. And even if the sentencing court had so relied, any error was harmless because, despite the unconstitutionality of the residual-clause definition of crime of violence in § 924(c)(3)(B), attempted murder is still a crime of violence under the alternative definition of the term in the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A). The district court denied the motion as well as a certificate of appealability (COA), though Sandoval-Flores then obtained a COA from the Tenth Circuit.
On appeal, Sandoval-Flores argued that his conviction must be set aside under § 924(c) because the trial court improperly ruled that attempted murder was a crime of violence in reliance on that section’s residual clause. Sandoval-Flores had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the residual clause led to the sentencing court’s sentence enhancement. The parties agreed that the sentencing record did not mention the residual clause. The Tenth Circuit thus considered whether background law could show that the sentencing court relied on the residual clause by precluding use of the elements clause for a particular conviction. Alternatively, background law could show that there was no need for the trial court to rely on the residual clause at sentencing, in which case it is more likely than not that the sentencing court did not rely on the residual clause. The Tenth Circuit considered opinions (1) holding that specific offenses qualify as crimes of violence and (2) instructing how to determine whether an offense so qualifies. The Tenth Circuit and the parties identified only one opinion predating Sandoval-Flores’s sentence that belonged in the first category, United States v. Luskin, 926 F.2d 372, 373 (4th Cir. 1991), which held that attempted murder satisfies the § 924(c) elements clause. As to the second category of opinions, the Tenth Circuit determined that the relevant background legal environment when Sandoval-Flores was sentenced in 2001 was identical to the current relevant background legal environment. Sandoval-Flores’s predicate felony was attempted murder in violation of 18 USC § 1114(a)(3), which penalizes attempts to kill US officers and employees engaged in their duties. Sandoval-Flores did not cite any appellate decisions holding that attempted murder is not a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A), and several have held that it is. Given the relevant case law, it can be inferred that a court would likely have determined in 2001 that attempted murder is a crime of violence under the elements clause. Sandoval-Flores thus did not establish that the sentencing court more likely than not relied on the residual clause in sentencing him under § 924(c).
The dismissal of the § 2255 motion was affirmed.