United States v. Angelo Goldston
906 F.3d 390
6th Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Angelo Goldston convicted by jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) after a yard confrontation in which he displayed a sawed-off shotgun; video showed him waving the gun and others unarmed.
- Presentence report increased offense level by four under USSG §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for possession of an operable firearm in connection with an aggravated assault; district court adopted PSR.
- PSR also classified Goldston as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) because he had at least three prior Tennessee felony drug convictions (sale/delivery and possession with intent to resell under Tenn. Code § 39-17-417(a)), which triggered the ACCA mandatory minimum 15-year sentence.
- District court applied ACCA, calculated advisory Guideline range (262–327 months), but varied below to a 240-month sentence; Goldston appealed the ACCA classification and the four-level enhancement.
- On appeal Goldston argued (1) Tennessee’s “deliver” statute is broader than the ACCA’s “distribute” (so his prior convictions are not ACCA predicates), and (2) he did not commit aggravated assault under Tennessee law (challenging the four-level enhancement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior Tenn. convictions for “deliver” qualify as ACCA "serious drug offenses" (i.e., match federal "distribute") | Gov't: Tenn. "deliver" matches federal "distribute"; state statute criminalizes distribution conduct that fits ACCA definition | Goldston: Tenn. "deliver" is broader because it could include "administering" and "dispensing," conduct not encompassed by ACCA "distribute" | Court held Tenn. "deliver" aligns with federal "distribute"; no realistic probability Tennessee prosecutes "administering/dispensing" under that statute — ACCA enhancement affirmed |
| Whether Shepard/modified categorical approach permits treating Goldston's convictions as distribution offenses | Gov't: Judgments (Shepard documents) show convictions for sale/delivery, divisible statute — apply modified categorical approach to pick distribution match | Goldston: Argues statutory language breadth precludes a categorical match | Court applied modified categorical approach to the judgments and concluded convictions correspond to generic distribution offense; ACCA applies |
| Whether Tennessee criminalizes practitioners’ "administering/dispensing" under the cited statute such that state offense would broaden ACCA predicate | Gov't: Tenn. definitions contemplate lawful administering/dispensing by practitioners; unlawful practitioner conduct falls within federal distribution definitions | Goldston: Argued practitioners can be criminalized by other Tenn. provisions, making state statute broader | Court rejected the argument (also forfeited), holding practitioner conduct is treated similarly under federal law and does not show realistic probability of non-generic application |
| Validity of four-level enhancement for aggravated assault (possession of firearm in connection with aggravated assault) | Gov't: Video showed Goldston used gun to intimidate; enhancement appropriate | Goldston: Contested that conduct did not amount to aggravated assault under Tennessee law | Court declined to decide because ACCA holding rendered the challenge moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishes categorical approach for prior-conviction predicates)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (limits when modified categorical approach may be used)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (defines documents permissible for modified categorical inquiry)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (requires realistic probability, not theoretical possibility, to show statute covers non-generic conduct)
- United States v. Strafford, 721 F.3d 380 (6th Cir.) (standard of review and approach for ACCA predicate analysis)
- United States v. Smith, 881 F.3d 954 (6th Cir.) (applying realistic-probability caution in categorical inquiries)
- United States v. Maldonado, 864 F.3d 893 (8th Cir.) (similar analysis rejecting broader reading of state "deliver"/"distribute" statutes)
- United States v. Johnson, 71 F.3d 539 (6th Cir.) (recognizes that unlawful practitioner conduct can be prosecuted under federal distribution statute)
- United States v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, 574 F.3d 329 (6th Cir.) (procedural forfeiture doctrine cited)