United States v. Wright, No. 20-5080 (10th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appellate Case: 20-5080 Document: 010110724361 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 15, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES PAUL WRIGHT, No. 20-5080 (D.C. Nos. 4:20-CV-00237-GKF-FHM & 4:12-CR-00197-GKF-1) (N.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ On July 7, 2022, this court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) and ordered supplemental briefing on one issue: whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). In response, the parties have filed a Joint Motion to Remand, asking this court to remand this matter to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. * Appellate Case: 20-5080 Document: 010110724361 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 Page: 2 United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022). For good cause shown, this motion is granted. In dismissing Mr. Wright’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying him a COA, the district court reasoned that “every circuit court to have considered the issue has concluded an attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause.” R. vol. I at 211. But in Taylor, the Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the elements clause: “Whatever one might say about completed Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the elements clause.” 142 S. Ct. at 2020. Rather than address in the first instance what Taylor means for Mr. Wright’s § 2255 motion, we remand his case to the district court for further consideration in light of Taylor. The Clerk shall issue the mandate forthwith. Entered for the Court Per Curiam 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
