Daryl Higdon v. United States, 882 F.3d 605

Daryl Higdon pled guilty in 2012 to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The district court sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), imposing a 15-year mandatory minimum based in part on a 1984 North Carolina conviction for discharging a firearm into an occupied structure (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-34.1).
After Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause, Higdon moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, arguing the North Carolina offense is not a ACCA “violent felony.”
The North Carolina offense elements: willfully/wanton discharging of a firearm into property while it is occupied, with knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe it is occupied (Rambert; James).
The district court denied relief, concluding the offense involved the “use of physical force against the person of another.”
The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and reversed, holding the statute targets force against a structure, not against a person’s body, and thus is not a qualifying ACCA predicate on a “use” theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.C. § 14-34.1 is a "violent felony" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (i.e., requires use of physical force against the person of another)	Higdon: the offense requires force against a structure only, so it does not involve physical force against a person	Government: the statute qualifies because the defendant fires toward occupied persons (acts recklessly/knowingly toward persons), so the force is "against" them even if not struck	Reversed: the offense involves force against a structure, not physical force against the person of another, so it is not a § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) violent felony on a "use" theory

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016) (mens rea for certain violent-felony concepts includes reckless conduct)
Braden v. United States, 817 F.3d 926 (6th Cir. 2016) (standard of review: de novo for § 2255 ACCA predicate questions)
United States v. Verwiebe, 874 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2017) (discussion of mens rea and ACCA predicate analysis)
United States v. Harper, 875 F.3d 329 (6th Cir. 2017) (alternative interpretation of mens rea requirement for ACCA provision)
United States v. Parral-Dominguez, 794 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2015) (concluding North Carolina shooting-into-structure offense is not an ACCA violent felony)
State v. Rambert, 459 S.E.2d 510 (N.C. 1995) (elements of N.C. § 14-34.1: willful/wanton discharge into occupied property)
State v. James, 466 S.E.2d 710 (N.C. 1996) (adding knowledge/reasonable belief that property is occupied as an element)