United States v. Andre L. Jones
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15525
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Jones was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced under ACCA's three-violent-felony trigger based on Illinois convictions for robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated vehicular fleeing.
- The district court counted vehicular fleeing under the ACCA residual clause (§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)) to raise the minimum to 15 years and maximum to life, yielding a 184-month sentence.
- Jones challenged only the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment, resisting reliance on any standard other than the text.
- Welch v. United States had held vehicular fleeing qualifies as a violent felony under the residual clause, informing Jones’s notice and status for post-Welch conduct.
- Jones argued vagueness should be judged by the text alone, not judicial interpretations; the district court and appeal court rejected this view.
- The Court affirmed the sentence, noting Welch foreclosed a facial vagueness challenge but applying an as-applied lens only to cases post-Welch.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. | Jones argues the residual clause lacks clear standard. | Jones relies on Welch; government argues reasonable interpretation saves it. | No; residual clause not unconstitutionally vague as applied. |
| Whether Welch provides fair notice so as to foreclose vagueness review. | Jones contends Welch gave advance notice; vagueness challenge is as-applied. | Welch’s ruling is controlling; cannot relitigate facial issues. | Welch provides notice but does not foreclose vagueness review here. |
| Whether the court may rely on judicial gloss to interpret an uncertain statute. | Statutory text alone determines the vagueness inquiry. | Judicial gloss can supply clarity under Skilling/Lanier. | Judicial gloss permissible but not to manufacture standard where none exists. |
| Should the challenge be treated as facial or as-applied given Welch. | A settled interpretation defeats facial vagueness claims. | Because Welch provided notice, challenge is not facial in this post-Welch context. | The challenge is not sustained as facial; judgment upholding sentence stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (discusses residual clause framework and risk similarity rules)
- Welch v. United States, 604 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2010) (held vehicular fleeing qualifies under residual clause; notice to Jones)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (defines risk-based approach to residual clause)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (restricts residual clause to similar risk crimes)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (uses various approaches including statistics for risk similarity)