United States v. Banks
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10014
6th Cir.2012Background
- Banks pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- PSR identified three prior convictions (two aggravated burglaries and one robbery) that qualified as violent felonies under ACCA.
- District court sentenced Banks to 180 months' imprisonment under ACCA.
- Banks challenged whether his adult robbery conviction (committed at age 17) qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA.
- Banks also argued an Eighth Amendment prohibition on using juvenile offenses to enhance to life without parole.
- Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence, rejecting Banks’s challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Banks's robbery conviction count as a violent felony under ACCA? | Banks argues the robbery may be non-violent and ambiguous. | U.S. contends the disjunctive definition makes the adult conviction a violent felony. | Yes; the adult robbery falls under violent felony regardless of juvenile element. |
| Is it constitutionally permissible to use a juvenile-offense to enhance an adult sentence under ACCA? | Graham prohibits such enhancements in some juvenile-offense contexts. | Graham does not categorically bar considering juvenile offenses for ACCA enhancements. | Not categorically prohibited; Graham governs juvenile cases but does not block ACCA enhancement here. |
| Was Banks’s argument about relying on indictment alone to prove violence forfeited and unreviewable on appeal? | Argument should be reviewed on the merits. | Argument was forfeited for lack of trial-court specificity. | We decline to review the forfeited argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hill, 440 F.3d 292 (6th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of ACCA legal conclusions and Eighth Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2006) (Eighth Amendment and ACCA considerations in sentencing)
- United States v. Bernal-Aveja, 414 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2005) (indictment alone insufficient to prove crime of violence; need record of violence)
- United States v. Armstead, 467 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 2006) (ambiguous statute; look to charging documents and record to determine violence)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (standard for determining violent/non-violent aspect when statute ambiguous)
- Fraker, 458 F.App’x 461 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished; robbery statute ambiguous as to violence under ACCA)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (limitations on applying harsh penalties to juveniles; framework for evolving Eighth Amendment analysis)
- United States v. Donald Graham, 622 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2010) (applied Graham to juvenile-age offenses in evaluating life-without-parole enhancements)