Eighth Circuit: United States v. Reginald Cole

ACCA predicates --- Sentencing court did not need specific finding of fact in the record that the three gun-related occurrences happened on three separate days.

United States  v.  Reginald Cole

Second Circuit: Johnson v. United States

Subsequent vacatur of on-point predicate conviction count doesn't bar the subsequent ACCA sentencing bump, as the statute merely requires that the offense be committed, not that the deft be convicted of it, and the other (non-vacated) counts can encompass the valid predicate offense.

No Ineffective Assistance as to that sort of stuff.

Johnson v. United States

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Bryan Chappell

ACCA predicates committed on the same day are distinct.

United States  v.  Bryan Chappell

Tenth Circuit -- United States v. Washington

Oklahoma juvenile conviction for pointing weapon dismissed after deft served probation functions as a valid ACCA predicate.

United States v. Washington

Seventh Circuit -- USA v. James Elliott

As burglaries were on different days and were of different houses, no error in ACCA sentencing bump for committing crimes on multiple occasions.

USA v. James Elliott

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Roger Bugh

Sufficient evidence to reject entrapment defense, as deft had aired plans to illegally sell firearm before being approached by the CI.

Aggressive pursuit of investigation was not outrageous governmental conduct sufficient to overturn the conviction.

No Due Process violation in gov't destruction of tapes, as deft didn't establish bad faith or exculpatory value.

Non-residential burglaries are valid ACCA predicates. 

United States  v.  Roger Bugh

First Circuit -- US v. Murdock

Where deft was on his own (small) front lawn for an hour while officers conducted a search, he wasn't in custody -- non-Mirandized statement is admissible.

No abuse of discretion in allowing tape of phone call without establishing identity of caller where caller identified self & demonstrated knowledge of many things.

No clear error in ACCA sentencing - the names were different on the paperwork for the priors, but it could have been a scrivening error.


US v. Murdock

First Circuit -- US v. Rodriguez

Massachusetts Larceny From the Person statute is an ACCA predicate.

US v. Rodriguez

Fourth Circuit -- US v. Torrell Vann

Majority per curiam - For purpose of modified categorical analysis of priors, where the wording of the plea/indictment tracks two sections of the statute, the deft does not necessarily plead to violating both.

Concurrence - Categorical approach mandatory & dispositive.  Statute isn't an ACCA predicate.

Concurrence - Residual priors a hopeless muddle under Taylor.

Concurrence - Categorical required, as elements of statute aren't cleanly divisible.

Concurrence - Although the state supreme ct. has held the statute to be a single offense, plain text reading of statute reveals the disjunctive elements.

Concurrence - statute too broad, Shepard docs unilluminating.

C/D - Modified categorical = valid predicate.

US v. Torrell Vann

Seventh Circuit -- Charles Keller v. USA

Prisoner's habeus claim arguing that vacating of two ACCA predicates warranted resentencing denied, as the court vacating the decisions issued an order subsequent to the habeus filings retracting the earlier order with respect to three of the convictions due to a scriveners error.

Charles Keller v. USA

Second Circuit -- US v. Torres-Rosario

As-applied challenge to felon-in-possession statute TKO'd, as priors were for drug dealing, which is bad and potentially violent.

No error in referring to deft in closing as a drug dealer, as it was a common-sense inference.

Excluded statement useless and harmless.

Subsequent reversal on ACCA predicates justifies vacate & remand in the interest of justice, despite deft stipulating to ACCA priors at sentencing.


US v. Torres-Rosario

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Michael Willoughby

Two drug sales in close physical and temporal proximity were part of the same chain of conduct, and therefore not divisible as predicates for ACCA

United States v. Michael Willoughby

Third Circuit -- USA v. Leonard Gibbs

State statute barring wearing of body armor is a serious drug offense ACCA predicate.

Modified categorical approach, the indictment is in under Shepard, and it reveals the underlying offense to be possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.

No notice issue as insufficiently vague or unexpected.

USA v. Leonard Gibbs

Tenth Circuit -- United States v. Coleman

Oklahoma juvie drug convictions count as serious drug priors under ACCA.

Court must look to full sentence in statute without considering offsetting factors such as release at majority.

United States v. Coleman

Sixth Circuit -- USA v. Keahmbi Coleman

USA v. Keahmbi Coleman 

Ohio "Buglary of an occupied structure" statute is a qualifying predicate offense for ACCA.

Court says that the categoraical approach should be applied.  Emphasis seems to be on what the typical instance of the crime would involve.

Residual prong.

First Circuit -- US v. Luna

US v. Luna 

Sufficient evidence to find that a local policeman carrying an FBI credential as part of a task force deputation is a federal officer for purposes of statute prohibiting assaulting the Feds. 

 No reversible error where ammunition is admitted without chain of custody foundation if a subsequent witness testifies to its unique features.

No hearsay  in gov't "interstate nexus" expert relying on third-party information.

For ACCA priors - an offense which involves threatening gestures can be an offense which involves the threat or use of force.

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. James Scudder

United States v. James Scudder

 Indiana child molestation statute is categorically a violent crime under the ACCA residual clause.

Sixth Circuit -- USA v. Tyrone McMurray

USA v. Tyrone McMurray

Predicate offense priors do not need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt in present trial.

Tennessee recklessly causing serious body injury statute not categorically a violent crme for ACCA.

Shepard papers do not establish that deft committed violent crime - despite prosecution colloquy at time of plea, deft's 'best interest' (Alford) plea & silence with respect to prosecution's colloquy means that the offense gets narrowest, saving interpretation.