United States v. Bordeaux
886 F.3d 189
2d Cir.2018Background
- Aldric Bordeaux pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) but reserved the right to contest ACCA enhancement; district court applied ACCA and sentenced him principally to 180 months.
- ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum if the defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses "committed on occasions different from one another." 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
- Bordeaux had three prior Connecticut first-degree robbery convictions under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134(a)(4) (displaying or threatening a firearm during a robbery) arising from three robberies in Bridgeport on Nov. 24, 2009.
- The three robberies occurred at approximately 10:00 p.m., 10:15 p.m., and 10:55 p.m. at locations roughly half a mile apart; plea colloquy and other state-court materials provided the factual basis.
- District court found (1) Connecticut first-degree robbery § 53a-134(a)(4) qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the elements clause, and (2) the three convictions were committed on "occasions different from one another." Bordeaux appealed both determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Bordeaux) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134(a)(4) is a "violent felony" under ACCA's elements clause | Connecticut first-degree robbery (a)(4) requires intent and threatened or displayed use of a firearm — qualifies as violent force | Argues statute can be satisfied by mere words (no actual firearm) and may not require "violent force" under Johnson standards | Yes. The statute satisfies intent and violent-force requirements; display or threat of a firearm qualifies as threatened use of violent force |
| Whether three prior convictions were for offenses "committed on occasions different from one another" | The robberies occurred at distinct times/locations and thus are separate criminal episodes | Contends the offenses were part of a single connected episode; also challenges evidentiary basis (police report) and burden shifting | Yes. Court applied criminal-episode standard: distinct times, distances, different victims, and plea colloquy support separate occasions; district court did not clearly err |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defines "violent force" requirement under ACCA elements clause)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (permissible sources for determining elements of prior convictions)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits record sources for convicting-offense elements inquiry)
- Stuckey v. United States, 878 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2017) (approach for identifying statutory minimum conduct and comparing to ACCA)
- Towne v. United States, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) (criminal-episode standard for "occasions different from one another")
- Rideout v. United States, 3 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1993) (factors for assessing separate occasions: victims, travel, reflection opportunity)
- Dantzler v. United States, 771 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2014) (government burden to prove separate criminal episodes; use of Taylor/Shepard sources)
- Barbour v. United States, 750 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2014) (illustrative contrary view where record did not prove one robbery ended before the next began)