91 F.4th 453
6th Cir.2024Background
- Al Dorsey was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon after police observed him discharging a firearm during a New Year's celebration in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
- Dorsey had prior Tennessee convictions for two counts of facilitating aggravated robbery and one count of robbery.
- At sentencing, his prior facilitation convictions were deemed "crimes of violence" under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, raising his guideline range.
- Dorsey argued that the prior Sixth Circuit decision in United States v. Gloss did not bind this case due to conflicts with other precedents and a Supreme Court decision.
- The district court disagreed, treated the facilitation offenses as "crimes of violence," and sentenced Dorsey to 72 months, below the guideline range.
- Dorsey appealed on the legal classification of his prior convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a conviction for facilitating aggravated robbery qualify as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines' elements clause? | Gloss conflicts with Vanhook and Borden; facilitation lacks intent; post-Borden, only purposeful/knowing use of force counts | Gloss is controlling; facilitation requires knowing assistance of violent crime; Borden doesn’t apply | Facilitating aggravated robbery is a "crime of violence" under Gloss—affirmed. |
| Is Sixth Circuit precedent (Gloss) controlling despite Dorsey's arguments? | Gloss should be disregarded due to conflict with earlier or higher authority | Gloss remains good law, as neither Vanhook nor Borden overrules it | Gloss binds this panel, no direct conflict with other precedents. |
| Did Vanhook or Woodruff create a circuit conflict on facilitation offenses? | Facilitation is less culpable than aiding and abetting and so does not qualify | Vanhook/ Woodruff were about different statutes (residual clause or drug guidelines) | No conflict; those cases addressed different clauses/statutes. |
| Does Borden v. United States change the elements clause analysis? | Borden excludes reckless conduct from elements clause | Facilitation requires knowing (not reckless) assistance | Borden doesn’t affect knowing facilitation convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gloss, 661 F.3d 317 (6th Cir. 2011) (held Tennessee facilitation of aggravated robbery is a "crime of violence" under elements clause)
- United States v. Vanhook, 640 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 2011) (analyzed facilitation under the ACCA residual clause, not the elements clause)
- Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) (robberies involving force or threat of force qualify under the elements clause)
- Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021) (elements clause excludes offenses satisfied by reckless conduct)