In a significant decision handed down on December 10, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a life sentence for our client, Holly Ann Elkins, in the case of United States v. Elkins. This victory highlights the critical importance of rigorous statutory analysis in federal criminal appeals, particularly regarding what constitutes a “crime of violence” under federal law.
Attorney Brett Ordiway represented Ms. Elkins in this complex appeal.
The Case: United States v. Elkins
The case involved a high-profile conspiracy regarding stalking and cyberstalking. Ms. Elkins was convicted by a jury on three counts: conspiracy to stalk, cyberstalking resulting in death, and using a firearm during a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
While the court affirmed the convictions for stalking and cyberstalking, the legal battle centered on Count Three: the firearm charge that carried a life sentence.
The Legal Challenge: Defining a “Crime of Violence”
The central issue on appeal was whether the cyberstalking offense charged in Count Two qualified as a “crime of violence” to support the conviction under § 924(c). Under the “elements clause” of § 924(c)(3)(A), a crime of violence must have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.
We argued that the specific statute under which Ms. Elkins was convicted—18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B)—does not categorically meet this definition.
The Fifth Circuit’s Ruling
The Fifth Circuit agreed with our analysis. In a detailed opinion authored by Judge Priscilla Richman, the Court concluded that the cyberstalking statute is “divisible,” meaning it contains different offenses with different elements.
Crucially, the Court held that the subsection regarding conduct that causes “substantial emotional distress” (§ 2261A(2)(B)) is not a crime of violence. The Court reasoned that a defendant could violate this statute by engaging in conduct that recklessly causes distress—such as driving a victim to suicide—without ever using or threatening physical force.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden v. United States, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that offenses that can be committed with a reckless mental state do not satisfy the “use of physical force” requirement necessary for a § 924(c) conviction.
Because the jury instructions allowed for a conviction under the non-violent subsection, the predicate offense failed, and the Court vacated the § 924(c) conviction and the associated life sentence.
Why This Matters for Federal Criminal Appeals
This decision underscores that federal sentencing enhancements are not automatic. The “categorical approach” used to determine if a prior conviction or a predicate offense counts as a “crime of violence” is highly technical and constantly evolving.
The government argued that because the stalking resulted in death, it should automatically be considered violent. However, the Fifth Circuit rejected this “commonsensical appeal,” adhering strictly to the statutory text and the categorical approach. This case serves as a reminder that even in cases involving serious allegations, defendants have rights to be sentenced strictly according to the law.
Contact Ordiway PLLC for Federal Appellate Representation
Successfully navigating the Fifth Circuit requires deep knowledge of statutory interpretation and sentencing guidelines. If you or a loved one are facing a federal conviction or need representation for a criminal appeal, you need an attorney who can identify complex legal errors that others might miss.
Contact Ordiway PLLC today to discuss your appellate options.
Disclaimer: The outcome of any case depends on the specific facts and legal circumstances. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in future cases.