United States v. Adam Longoria, 874 F.3d 1278

Background

Longoria pleaded guilty in 2009 to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and two counts of distribution of cocaine; the distributions occurred Nov. 24, 2008 and Dec. 3, 2008, and the conspiracy ran through Dec. 10, 2008.
He was sentenced in 2010 and released to supervised release; in 2016 he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The Probation Office determined Longoria qualified as an Armed Career Criminal under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), based on the three 2008 drug convictions, creating a 15‑year mandatory minimum; the district court relied on Shepard‑approved documents to find the predicates were on "occasions different from one another."
Longoria appealed, arguing (1) the three prior convictions were not on different occasions, (2) the court improperly relied on non‑elemental facts (dates) from prior records, (3) Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations, and (4) § 922(g) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo the different‑occasions and predicate‑offense questions, applied Shepard limitations on admissible documents, and affirmed the conviction and ACCA sentence.

Issues

Issue	Longoria's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the three prior drug convictions were "committed on occasions different from one another" under the ACCA	The conspiracy and substantive distribution offenses overlapped and therefore were not separate occasions	The two distributions (Nov. 24 and Dec. 3) and the conspiracy (ending Dec. 10) were temporally distinct and successive, so they are separate episodes	The convictions were successive and sufficiently temporally distinct; ACCA enhancement affirmed
Whether the district court improperly considered non‑elemental facts (dates) from prior plea materials	Dates are non‑elemental facts and thus outside Shepard scope for determining predicates	Shepard‑approved documents may be used to determine factual nature and timing of prior convictions	Court rejected Longoria; Eleventh Circuit precedent permits using Shepard‑approved records to determine dates/occasions
Whether determining predicate timing violated Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights	Finding factual predicates deprived Longoria of rights to indictment/jury factfinding	Recidivist sentencing factfinding is permissible; Weeks and Almendarez‑Torres allow judicial factfinding on prior convictions	Claim foreclosed by precedent; no constitutional violation found
Whether § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power	Section 922(g) is unconstitutional as beyond Commerce power	§ 922(g) is constitutional under Commerce Clause per Eleventh Circuit precedent	Plain‑error review fails; § 922(g) upheld and argument foreclosed

Key Cases Cited

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (documents a court may consult to determine the nature of a prior conviction)
United States v. Weeks, 711 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (district courts may determine factual nature and timing of prior convictions using Shepard‑approved documents for ACCA purposes)
United States v. Pope, 132 F.3d 684 (11th Cir. 1998) (predicate crimes that are successive rather than simultaneous constitute separate episodes for ACCA)
United States v. Rice, 43 F.3d 601 (11th Cir. 1995) (substantive offenses overlapping a conspiracy can be distinct where separate in time/locale and require separate planning)
United States v. Hansley, 54 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 1995) (substantive offense within conspiracy may still be sufficiently unrelated for enhancement)
United States v. Melbie, 751 F.3d 586 (8th Cir. 2014) (possession during a conspiracy can be a discrete episode for ACCA purposes)
Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (recidivist enhancements need not be alleged in the indictment)
United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir. 1996) (§ 922(g) constitutional under the Commerce Clause)