Eighth Circuit: United States v. Stacy Lyman

 

As the petitioner was sufficiently represented by counsel during the earlier criminal proceedings that resulted in the predicate convictions, claiming that the charging documents allege a mental state different from that of the offense charged is an impermissible collateral attack from a second forum.

Court did not plainly err in holding that no mental state was required for the predicate serious drug offenses under the statute.

 United States  v.  Stacy Lyman

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Dante Benson-Henry

Social media posts showing person possessing firearm, one of which was in front of deft's garage, suffice to sufficiently establish felony possession for purposes of parole revocation and subsequent sentence.

Sentence substantively reasonable given public safety and substance abuse treatment needs.

United States  v.  Dante Benson-Henry

SIxth Circuit: United States v. Michael Stephens

Vacate and remand, given recent circuit precedent holding that Attempt is not a valid predicate for ACCA sentencing bump.

United States v. Michael Stephens

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Robert Brandon

As deft took affirmative steps to conceal possession of firearm, court's acceptance of guilty plea without colloquy or finding on scienter to establish that deft knew that his previous conviction would prohibit possession was not plain error.

USA v. Robert Brandon

Fifth Circuit: USA v. James Perryman

Commerce Clause sufficient justification for law barring convicted felon's possession of weapon that at some point previous travelled in interstate commerce; present interstate travel need not be established.

PSR's unsworn statements describing previous proceeding are sufficient to establish perjury for the purpose of sentencing bump where the court also adopts an addendum that contains the relevant record excerpts.

USA v. James Perryman

Third Circuit: USA v. Roy Green

Supreme Court's holding that the residual clause of ACCA was unconstitutionally vague did not announce a new constitutional rule that would justify the appeal of sentences under any compulsory residual sentencing scheme; this is established in part by the subsequent holding of the Court that advisory residual sentencing schemes are not unconstitutionally vague. Circuit split flagged.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172906p.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Carl Leo Davis v. US

The Supreme Court's holding that the residual clause of ACCA was unconstitutionally vague announced a substantive change in the law that applies to petitioners seeking collateral review of sentences imposed under a parallel provision of the mandatory sentencing guidelines, despite the Supreme Court's subsequent holding that the provision in the guidelines was constitutional, as the gudelines, in the interval, had become merely advisory.

This substantive shift in the law was a sharp reversal from precedent, legitimately causing the petitioners not to raise the issue on direct appeal.

A second substantive change in the law that removed an alternate basis for the sentence of one of the petitioners did not trigger a mandatory limitation period for filing the writ, as it would merely have shifted the ultimate basis for the sentence.

A plea deal carve out excepting any constitutionally impermissible factor incorporates any unconstitutional input present at sentencing.

Prior offenses should be considered categorically when deciding whether the conviction is a valid predicate.

(Important decision.  Again, all this is quick work.  Don't rely.)

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-07/C:17-2282:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2167546:S:0

Fourth Circuit: US v. Daniel Sanchez

When a deft elects not to challenge an almost-completed sentence by Habeas, a challenge to the imposition of additional time after revocation of supervised release cannot be raised on the grounds that the original sentence was unconstitutional, as statute requires such challenges to be made by direct appeal or collateral challenge.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174169.P.pdf

Fourth Circuit: US v. Eddie Fluker

Under categorical analysis, state robbery statute isn't a crime of violence, as it only required the minimum of force to take the object from the other person.

A postconviction challenge to a sentencing error after the completion of the sentence is not moot where the petitioner is currently incarcerated on a subsequent conviction to be served consecutively to the challenged sentence. 

No error in allowing testimony not presented at trial during a full resentencing, so long as the government is not given a second bite at the apple with respect to a certain sentencing decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174690.P.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Larry Cradler v. United States

Where a District Court has extensively considered merits, forfeited timeliness challenges to Habeas shouldn't be entertained on appeal.

As prior panel had used the facts of the offense to determine whether it was a violent crime, as opposed to using them to identify which divisible element of the statute had been violated, petitioner's claim isn't barred by precedent.

Not a crime of violence under modified categorical.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0105p-06.pdf

Second Circuit: US v. Castillo

Government's premature concession that advisory sentencing guidelines residual clause was void for vagueness did not forfeit the claim, as it's a question of law, and the court can decide on its own.

Offense can be defined for purposes of modified categorical review by combining common law, state codes, and MPC.

Recklessness suffices for the mental state when categorizing manslaughter as a crime of violence.

Under modified categorical review, state manslaughter statute is a crime of violence, as even an omission can(?) require recklessness.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c03aa681-4808-489f-8380-da2ee3800b29/2/doc/16-4129_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c03aa681-4808-489f-8380-da2ee3800b29/2/hilite/

First Circuit: US v. Reed, III

Sentencing, ACCA


Two predicate offenses properly considered separately, despite the single plea agreement, as there was an intervening arrest.

Absent a showing that the offenses were part of a single event or spree, the predicates are properly considered separately.


US v. Reed, III

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Michael Lindsey

Sentencing, ACCA

As the challenge to the existence of the predicates in the PSR was untimely and did not make a showing as to why an untimely challenge should be allowed, the convictions are considered to be undisputed facts.

State assault statute that proscribes acts that cause the fear of assault is a valid ACCA predicate.


United States  v.  Michael Lindsey

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Alexander Faulkner

Fourth Amendment, ACCA, Confrontation Clause

Affidavit statement that tipster was reliable sufficed for credibility.

 Placement of GPS on car in county outside the scope of the search warrant was a violation of state law, but not one that rises to the level of suppression.

Reputation of deft as drug dealer sufficed for warrant for home.

No confrontation clause in inability to question tipster, as there was no contact with case after the affidavit.

Possession with intent and conspiracy with intent correctly counted as two predicates under ACCA.

United States  v.  Alexander Faulkner

Ninth Circuit: USA V. JORGE CISNEROS

ACCA residual clause

As the state Burglary statute encompasses structures that are not included in the generic federal definition of burglary, sentencing enhancements under the federal statute cannot be applied.

[cf. S. Ct. U.S. this AM.]


USA V. JORGE CISNEROS

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Marvance Robinson

Sentencing, ACCA residual clause

Where the record does not establish whether deft was sentenced according to the use of generic predicate convictions or qualitatively specific ones, remand.

United States  v.  Marvance Robinson

First Circuit: US v. Soto-Rivera

Sentencing - Guidelines / Johnson / (ACCA)

Given govt stipulation that Guidelines residual clause is unconstitutionally vague Post-Johnson, an on-point note to the Guidelines doesn't save the predicate, as the note referred to an offense type that appears nowhere outside of the residual clause.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1216P-01A.pdf

Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Demetrius Renaldo Bowers

FRCrimP

No error in denial of severance of joined counts, as motion was untimely, and no compelling prejudice resulted.

Sufficient evidence.

ACCA upheld against SOP, other constitutional challenges.

Mandatory 187 year sentence for brandishing firearm during robberies not grossly disproportionate.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201411585.pdf

Eleventh Circuit: Dan Carmichael McCarthan v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Medium

Habeas

S. Ct. holding that state escape statute is not categorically a violent crime for purposes of the ACCA predicate conviction is a substantive change in the law to be made retroactively available on collateral review.

Circuit precedent that escape was a violent crime for purposes of one statute had a preclusive effect on whether it was a crime of violence with reference to another statute.

Very complex - here's our best guess: Access to S2241 Habeas depends on there being no effective remedy by a Habeas claim on motion.  Where a deft has multiple potential predicates in the PSR and the indictment only lists three, but neither the sentencing court nor the PSR identifies the ones to be used in the ACCA enhancement, all potentially valid predicates are counted against the deft in considering jurisdiction for a S2241 writ unless petitioner can affirmatively establish that prior Habeas on motion would have been ineffective against the uncharged predicates.  The argument that a challenge to a predicate was waived for procedural default, however, is a an affirmative defense on the merits - the relevant jurisdictional question for the S2241 writ is whether the writ on motion would have been an effective challenge.

[Again, don't rely on any of this for anything.]

Concurrence: No access to writ, as alternate bases for the enhancement establish that sentencing court did not rely on the challenged offense.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214989.pdf

Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Antone T. Adams

ACCA

Sentence imposed under ACCA residual clause vacated on direct appeal, as state priors aren't predicates.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201414329.pdf