28 USC § 2255 motion to vacate a sentence; Whether defendant properly brought his claim under Johnson v. United States (Johnson II); Raines v. United States; Potter v. United States; Whether a Michigan conviction for unarmed robbery constituted a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) career criminal 15-year mandatory minimum (18 USC § 924(e)(1)); MCL 750.530; United States v. Mekediak (Unpub. 6th Cir.); United States v. Lamb (Unpub. 8th Cir.); United States v. Tirrell (7th Cir.); The ACCA’s “elements clause”; § 924(e)(2)(B)(i); Whether the Michigan statute’s inclusion of “putting in fear” necessarily involves the threat of violence; United States v. Mathews (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Michigan v. Kruper (MI); Michigan v. Hearn (MI App.); Michigan v. Randolph (MI); United States v. Mitchell; Stokeling v. United States; Whether attempted unarmed robbery is a violent felony under the elements clause; Michigan v. Burton (MI App.); Michigan v. Gardner (MI)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that Michigan attempted unarmed robbery, as it existed in 1981, is a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause. Defendant-Chaney was sentenced as an armed career criminal. One of his predicate crimes of violence was a 1981 Michigan conviction for attempted unarmed robbery. He argued that this conviction did not qualify as a “violent felony” after the Supreme Court invalidated the ACCA’s residual clause in Johnson II. He maintained that it did not constitute a violent felony under the “elements clause” because it “does not ‘ha[ve] as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another[.]’” The district court disagreed and denied his motion to vacate his sentence. The court first held that Chaney could bring his claim under Johnson II because the district court “might have relied on the residual clause” in making its sentencing decision. It then considered the merits of his claim and held that “Chaney’s 1981 Michigan conviction for attempted unarmed robbery is categorically a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause.” The statute covered “theft committed ‘by force and violence, or by assault, or putting in fear.’” The court previously held in Mathews that “putting in fear” involves “a ‘reasonable belief that [the victim] may suffer injury unless he complies with the demand.’” The court joined the Seventh and Eighth Circuits by holding that “Michigan unarmed robbery is a violent felony under the ACCA.” The court rejected Chaney’s argument that even if Michigan unarmed robbery qualifies as a violent felony, attempted unarmed robbery does not. It noted that “the ACCA’s elements clause expressly includes the ‘attempted use’ of ‘physical force.’” Affirmed.