United States v. Aleem Shabazz
17-3512
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 5, 2019Background:
- Shabazz (a felon) purchased ammunition and had his girlfriend buy firearms; he was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 922(a)(6).
- He had three prior Delaware convictions for second-degree burglary (Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 825(a)(1)) from 2010.
- At sentencing the Government sought ACCA enhancement (15-year mandatory minimum) based on those three burglaries; Shabazz contended two were not on "occasions different" and that Delaware burglary was broader than generic burglary.
- The District Court found the three burglaries occurred on separate occasions but held Delaware § 825(a)(1) was broader than generic burglary because it expressly encompassed vehicles and watercraft.
- While this appeal was stayed, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Stitt, holding generic burglary includes vehicles adapted for overnight accommodation.
- The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing so the District Court can apply Stitt and reconsider ACCA applicability and other sentencing matters (including Shabazz’s current status).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the three prior burglaries occurred on "occasions different" for ACCA | Government: the three convictions are separate occurrences and count as three predicates | Shabazz: at least two occurred on the same occasion and therefore do not yield three distinct predicates | District Court’s factual finding that the offenses were on separate occasions is supported and not disturbed |
| Whether Delaware § 825(a)(1) categorically matches the generic burglary definition for ACCA | Government: under Stitt, generic burglary includes vehicles adapted for overnight use, so Delaware burglary can match | Shabazz: Delaware’s law reaches vehicles/watercraft broadly and thus is broader than generic burglary | Court did not decide categorical match; vacated and remanded for the District Court to apply Stitt and reconsider ACCA enhancement and sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399 (clarified that generic burglary includes vehicles designed or adapted for overnight accommodation)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (described categorical approach comparing state statute elements to generic offense)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (explained limits on using sentencing records when statute is broader than generic offense)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (formulated the generic definition of burglary used in ACCA analysis)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (permitted use of certain documents to identify prior conviction facts for sentencing)
- Quarles v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1872 (discussed the "remaining in" form of burglary)
- United States v. Gibbs, 656 F.3d 180 ( Third Circuit: standard of review for ACCA applicability is plenary)
- United States v. Blair, 734 F.3d 218 (Third Circuit: use of Shepard documents to establish facts about prior convictions)