Ivory Vincent Pitts v. United States
4 F. 4th 1109
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background
- Pitts pleaded guilty (2009) to being a felon in possession of a firearm; sentencing used ACCA to impose 15-year mandatory minimum.
- PSR and district court relied on four predicate convictions for ACCA: 1978 CA robbery with a firearm; 1982 CA robbery (and related forcible rape); 1993 FL delivery of cocaine; 2001 FL possession with intent to sell.
- District court and Eleventh Circuit on direct appeal found California robbery statute qualified as a violent felony; sentence affirmed.
- After Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause (and Welch made Johnson retroactive), Pitts obtained leave to file a second/successive §2255 challenging that some predicates (the robberies) no longer qualify.
- Magistrate found the CA robberies non-violent under post‑Johnson Ninth Circuit authority but concluded the forcible rape plus two uncontested Florida drug convictions still yielded three predicates; district court denied relief.
- Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Pitts failed to show the sentencing court relied solely on the residual clause for at least the 1978 robbery, and even without resolving the rape issue, Pitts retained at least three ACCA predicates.
Issues
| Issue | Pitts' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pitts proved the sentencing court relied only on the ACCA residual clause in counting his 1978 CA robbery as a "violent felony" | The record and precedent (e.g., Ninth Circuit decisions) showed the CA robbery could not categorically match the elements clause, so the court must have relied on the residual clause | The record does not show the court relied solely on the residual clause; other clauses (elements or enumerated) plausibly supported the finding | Pitts failed to meet his Beeman burden; cannot show sentencing relied only on the residual clause; claim denied |
| Whether pre‑sentencing precedent compelled a residual‑clause‑only finding for CA §211 robbery (i.e., that only the residual clause could have supported ACCA qualification) | Ninth Circuit cases (e.g., Becerril‑Lopez) suggested §211 was broader than generic robbery, implying reliance on the residual clause | Becerril‑Lopez did not show §211 was outside the elements or enumerated clauses; it recognized extortion could be implicated, which is an enumerated offense | Court held Becerril‑Lopez (and later Dixon) did not demonstrate that binding authority at sentencing would have forced a residual‑only basis; circumstantial precedent was insufficient |
| Whether the potential invalidity of the forcible rape conviction affects outcome | If rape is not a violent felony, two robberies might both fail, leaving only two drug predicates and invalidating ACCA | Even if rape were invalid, the two robbery convictions plus two drug convictions (or at least one robbery + two drugs) provide the required three predicates | Court declined to resolve the rape issue because, regardless, at least three qualifying predicates remained; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
- Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir.) (movant must show sentencing depended solely on residual clause)
- Williams v. United States, 985 F.3d 813 (11th Cir.) (circumstantial precedent must be clear to establish residual‑only reliance)
- United States v. Dixon, 805 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (post‑sentencing interpretation of CA robbery)
- United States v. Becerril‑Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir.) (interpreting CA §211 as covering conduct that can qualify as robbery or extortion)
- United States v. Pickett, 916 F.3d 960 (11th Cir.) (post‑sentencing cases do not establish what the law was at sentencing)
- Mays v. United States, 817 F.3d 728 (11th Cir.) (circuit may revise COA to fit dispositive issue)