Unverzagt v. United States, No. 17-2325 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court held that Johnson did not justify relief in this case, because defendant's prior conviction for first degree assault qualified as a violent felony under the force clause. Therefore, defendant was not sentenced based on the residual clause and failed to satisfy the requirements for proceeding with a successive motion under section 2255(h)(2).
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Gruender and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Unverzagt's prior conviction for first-degree assault qualified as a violent felony under the force clause and this court determined in his direct appeal that his two prior convictions for second-degree burglary counted under the enumerated offense clause; this court's ruling establishes as a matter of law that Unverzagt was not sentenced under the residual clause, and he was not entitled to habeas relief. Judge Gruender, concurring in the judgment.
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.