United States v. Joshua Calhoun ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 18 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-16327
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. Nos.    2:19-cv-00082-JCM
    2:15-cr-00249-JCM
    v.
    JOSHUA FORBES CALHOUN,                          MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 13, 2020**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: WARDLAW and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and CHOE-GROVES,***
    Judge.
    Joshua Calhoun appeals the district court’s denial of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    motion to vacate his sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge for the United States
    Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    , and we affirm.
    Calhoun pleaded guilty in Colorado state court in 2007 to “Sexual Contact-
    No Consent” in violation of Colorado Revised Statute § 18-3-404(1)(a). In the
    proceedings below, Calhoun pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child
    pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1). As part of his guilty
    plea, Calhoun conceded that his previous Colorado conviction relates “to
    aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a
    minor or ward” under the relevant penalty provision, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1),
    which increased the mandatory minimum sentence from five years to fifteen years.
    Based in part on this concession, the district court sentenced Calhoun to fifteen
    years in prison and lifetime supervision. In relevant part, Calhoun’s 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his
    trial attorney failed to argue that his Colorado conviction was not a predicate
    offense, either because the prior conviction was not a categorical match with the
    penalty provision or because extenuating circumstances precluded trial counsel
    from using the prior conviction as a predicate offense.
    1. The district court correctly concluded that Calhoun’s trial attorney was
    not ineffective for failing to argue that his Colorado conviction was not a
    categorical match with 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) because this argument is without
    merit. United States v. Hill, 
    915 F.3d 669
    , 673 (9th Cir. 2019) (reviewing the
    2
    denial of a § 2255 motion de novo); United States v. Sullivan, 
    797 F.3d 623
    , 635
    (9th Cir. 2015) (reviewing whether a conviction supports a statutory mandatory
    minimum enhancement de novo). The failure to raise a meritless argument does
    not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Boag v. Raines, 
    769 F.2d 1341
    ,
    1344 (9th Cir. 1985).
    Under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b), the sentencing court must apply an enhanced
    sentence if, applying the categorical approach, the elements of Calhoun’s Colorado
    conviction match, or at least “relat[e] to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or
    abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.” See United States v. Sinerius,
    
    504 F.3d 737
    , 743 (9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). Because Calhoun was convicted
    under a divisible statute—one that “comprises multiple, alternative versions of the
    crime” of unlawful sexual contact, Descamps v. United States, 
    570 U.S. 254
    , 262
    (2013)1—we apply the modified categorical approach and look only to Calhoun’s
    specific crime of conviction, 
    id.
     at 263–64.
    1
    State law and the record of Calhoun’s Colorado conviction demonstrate
    that C.R.S. § 18-3-404 is a divisible statute, and that Calhoun was specifically
    convicted of violating C.R.S. § 18-3-404(1)(a). See Mathis v. United States, 
    136 S. Ct. 2243
    , 2249, 2256–57 (2016); compare, e.g., Page v. People, 
    402 P.3d 468
    , 471
    (Colo. 2017) (listing the elements of “unlawful sexual contact” under section 18-3-
    404(1)(a)), and Colo. Jury Instr., Criminal 3-4:20 (same), with People v. Madden,
    
    111 P.3d 452
    , 456 (Colo. 2005) (en banc) (defining “the crime of third degree
    sexual assault” under § 18-3-404(1.5)), and Colo. Jury Instr., Criminal 3-4:26
    (setting out the elements of Unlawful Sexual Contact (Under Eighteen) under 18-3-
    404(1.5)).
    3
    The state crime of which Calhoun was convicted, C.R.S. § 18-3-404(1)(a), is
    defined as the “knowing touching” of the victim’s “intimate parts,” even if they are
    covered by clothing, for sexual “arousal, gratification or abuse,” without consent,
    id. § 18-3-401(4). The offense categorically qualifies as “sexual abuse” because it
    prohibits physical contact done for sexual gratification and without consent. See
    Sinerius, 
    504 F.3d at
    740–41 (holding that a similar Montana statute that
    prohibited knowingly subjecting someone to “any sexual contact without consent”
    “undeniably proscribe[d]” sexual acts that amounted to an “indecent assault” and,
    therefore, “sexual abuse”).
    2. The district court correctly concluded that Calhoun’s trial attorney was
    not ineffective for failing to argue that extenuating circumstances disqualified the
    use of his Colorado conviction as a predicate offense. See Boag, 
    769 F.2d at 1344
    .
    Any argument that Calhoun’s prior conviction was too remote in time to qualify as
    a predicate offense would fail because 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) contains no time
    limit and we have upheld sentence enhancements based on much older convictions.
    See United States v. Farmer, 
    627 F.3d 416
    , 417 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding a
    sentence enhancement for a prior conviction from 21 years earlier for relating to
    sexual abuse). We decline to reach Calhoun’s remaining arguments because they
    amount to an improper attempt to collaterally attack his prior state conviction
    through a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Daniels, 
    195 F.3d 501
    , 503–04 (9th
    4
    Cir. 1999).
    AFFIRMED.
    5