12/12/17: Mathis does not establish a new rule of constitutional law & Federal carjacking is a crime of violence for purposes of 924(c)

In Arazola-Galea v. United States, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-73574 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court held that Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), which clarified application of the categorical analysis, did not establish a new rule of constitutional law. 

Thus, the Court declined to give Mathis retroactive application, and on that basis denied the petitioner's request to file a second or successive habeas petition.

In United States v. Gutierrez, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-35583 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court held that federal carjacking (18 U.S.C. 2119), constitutes a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. 924. 

Although carjacking can be committed by intimidation, the Court determined, "[t]o be guilty of carjacking 'by intimidation,' the defendant must take a motor vehicle through conduct that would put an ordinary, reasonable person in fear of bodily harm, which necessarily entails the threatened use of violent physical force."

Thus, carjacking is a predicate offense for brandishing a firearm during a "crime of violence," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).