USA V. DANIEL DRAPER, No. 17-15104 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. He argued that his Section 924(c) conviction and its mandatory 15-year consecutive sentence should be vacated because his predicate crime, voluntary manslaughter, does not qualify as a crime of violence.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion. The panel wrote that for purposes of Section 924(c), voluntary manslaughter has the same mental state as murder—intent to commit a violent act against another or recklessness with extreme indifference to human life. Like murder, voluntary manslaughter requires at least an “extreme and necessarily oppositional” state of mind. The panel held that the district court therefore properly denied Defendant’s Section 2255 motion.
Court Description: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Daniel Draper’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which he argued that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using a firearm during a crime of violence and its mandatory consecutive sentence should be vacated because his predicate crime, voluntary manslaughter, does not qualify as a crime of violence.
Applying United States v. Begay, 33 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir.
2022) (en banc) (which held that depraved heart murder necessarily entails the force required to qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(3)(A)), the panel held that voluntary manslaughter is a crime of violence under § 924(c). The panel wrote that for purposes of § 924(c), voluntary manslaughter has the same mental state as murder—intent to commit a violent act against another or recklessness with extreme indifference to human life. Like murder, voluntary manslaughter requires at least an “extreme and necessarily oppositional” state of mind. The panel held that the district court therefore properly denied Draper’s § 2255 motion.
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.