United States v. Antonio Mata, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16243

Background

Antonio Mata pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and being an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
In his plea agreement Mata stipulated three prior convictions: two Texas first-degree drug delivery convictions (2001) and a Minnesota third-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction (2004) under Minn. Stat. § 609.344(1)(c).
The district court applied the ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum because Mata had three prior convictions for either a "violent felony" or a "serious drug offense."
The dispositive question on appeal was whether the 2004 Minnesota conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate violent felony under the ACCA force clause (use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force).
The Minnesota statute is divisible because it criminalizes sexual penetration by force, by coercion, or both; the court applied the modified categorical approach and reviewed plea colloquy transcripts.
The 2004 plea colloquy contains the defendant’s admissions that the victim said "no," penetration occurred, and Mata used his strength/force to accomplish the act; the court concluded Mata pleaded guilty to the force prong and thus the conviction qualified as a violent felony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mata’s Minn. Stat. § 609.344(1)(c) conviction is an ACCA predicate violent felony	Mata argued the statute sweeps in nonviolent conduct and thus cannot serve as an ACCA predicate	Government argued the statute is divisible and the plea shows Mata admitted using force, satisfying the ACCA force clause	The court held the statute is divisible; plea colloquy shows Mata admitted use of force, so the conviction counts as an ACCA violent felony
Whether the modified categorical approach may be used to identify which prong of the divisible statute was the basis for conviction	Mata contended prior conviction cannot be counted when statute covers both violent and nonviolent conduct	Government relied on Mathis/Descamps framework permitting review of limited records (plea colloquy) for divisible statutes	The court applied the modified categorical approach and reviewed the plea colloquy to identify that Mata admitted force
Whether coercion prong would independently qualify as a violent felony under ACCA (raised but not argued distinctly)	Mata broadly argued statutes that mix violent and nonviolent conduct should not count (but did not separately argue coercion is nonviolent)	Government did not need to address coercion because plea showed force	The court declined to decide whether coercion alone meets ACCA’s force requirement and left that question for another day
Whether Mata’s two Texas drug convictions should be counted separately for ACCA purposes	Mata argued single-sentence rule might combine the Texas offenses into one for criminal history purposes	Government pointed to separate occasions of sales five days apart; ACCA counts convictions committed on different occasions separately	The court held the two drug deliveries five days apart are separate offenses for ACCA purposes

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Irons, 849 F.3d 743 (8th Cir.) (standard of review: de novo)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defining "physical force" as violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisible-statute analysis and modified categorical approach)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (distinguishing indivisible statutes from divisible ones for categorical approach)
United States v. Headbird, 832 F.3d 844 (8th Cir.) (categorical and modified categorical framework explanation)
United States v. Lopez-Zepeda, 466 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding force in § 609.344(1)(c) qualifies as crime of violence under the Guidelines)
United States v. Schaffer, 818 F.3d 796 (8th Cir.) (treating Guideline "crime of violence" and ACCA "violent felony" definitions as interchangeable)
United States v. Long, 320 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2003) (separate drug deliveries on different occasions count separately for ACCA)
Maxfield v. Cintas Corp., 487 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir.) (precedent-binding rule on following prior circuit decisions)