and Submitted October 9, 2018
Submission Vacated October 10, 2018
Resubmitted September 3, 2019 Seattle, Washington
from the United States District Court No. 1:16-cv-00282-EJL
for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge,
Melissa D. Winberg (argued), Federal Defender Services of
Idaho, Boise, Idaho, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Wick (argued) and Syrena C. Hargrove, Assistant United States
Attorneys; Bart M. Davis, United States Attorney; United
States Attorney's Office, Boise, Idaho; for
Before: Richard A. Paez and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges,
and C. Ashley Royal, [*] District Judge.
U.S.C. § 2255
a sentence, the panel held that a Minnesota conviction for
aiding and abetting simple robbery qualifies as a predicate
violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act's
force clause because the minimum force required to sustain a
Minnesota simple robbery includes the amount of force
necessary to overcome a victim's resistance.
panel wrote that this court's prior distinction between
"substantial" and "minimal" force in the
ACCA robbery context cannot be reconciled with the Supreme
Court's holding in Stokeling v. United States,
139 S.Ct. 544 (2019).
Allen Ward challenges his mandatory sentence under the Armed
Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. §
924(e). He argues on appeal that the district court
erroneously determined that his prior Minnesota state
conviction for aiding and abetting simple robbery under Minn.
Stat. Ann. § 609.24 is a "violent felony"
under the ACCA's force clause. Because the minimum force
required to sustain a Minnesota simple robbery "includes
the amount of force necessary to ...