United States v. Beierle, 810 F.3d 1193

Beierle convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The district court sentenced him to 15 years after an ACCA residual-clause enhancement was applied.
Defendant argues three issues on appeal: absence at an instruction conference, admission of a credibility opinion by a deputy, and the ACCA sentence.
The panel rejects the first two contentions but agrees the ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, requiring vacatur.
Defendant’s absence from the instruction conference did not violate due process because the issues were purely legal and he had no contribution to offer.
The district court’s admission of the deputy’s credibility opinion is reviewed for plain error; the record shows overwhelming guilt substantial enough to overcome any error.
Following Johnson v. United States, the ACCA residual clause is invalid, so the sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to attend instruction conference	Beierle’s due-process right to be present was violated.	Presence would have aided defense strategy and fairness.	No due-process right to attend; absence did not violate due process.
Admission of credibility testimony	Wilson’s credibility opinion supported guilt.	Opinion on another witness’s truthfulness is improper expert/lay testimony.	No reversible plain error; overwhelming evidence supports conviction.
ACCA residual clause validity	—	ACCA residual clause constitutional vagueness violates Johnson v. United States.	ACCA residual clause unconstitutional; sentence vacated and remanded.

Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) (due-process limits on absence from jury view; can learn later via witnesses or counsel)
Gagnon v. United States, 470 U.S. 526 (1985) (presence at non-evidentiary proceedings governed by due process; absence not per se error)
Stincer v. United States, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (defendant's presence required only if essential to fair procedure)
Deschin es v. United States, 224 F.2d 688 (1955) (defendant need not be present at purely legal instruction conferences)
Larson v. Tansy, 911 F.2d 392 (1990) (defendant not required at jury-instruction conference; purely legal issues)
Ma r es, 441 F.3d 1152 (2006) (limitations on Rule 404(b) limiting instructions; credibility evidence context)
Hill v. United States, 749 F.3d 1250 (2014) (expert testimony on credibility generally improper; plain-error review applied)
Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (1999) (lay vs. expert testimony on credibility; Rule 701/702 distinction)