United States v. Boykin
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4006
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Boykin pleaded guilty to felon-in-possession and false statements after lying on ATF forms.
- PSR increased his base to 33 under ACCA based on three prior violent felonies, including two 1980 convictions.
- District court relied on PSR details to conclude the 1980 offenses were on different occasions for ACCA.
- Two 1980 convictions arose from a single altercation but involved different victims and scenes, per PSR.
- Boykin challenged the PSR at sentencing, arguing it lacked Shepard-approved sourcing and accuracy.
- Court vacated sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing on the ACCA determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of PSR challenge | Boykin preserved via sentencing contention. | Government asserts plain-error review. | Preserved; Thompson-style analysis applies. |
| PSR as Shepard-approved source | PSR lacks derivation from Shepard-approved sources. | Thompson allows PSR use if derives from Shepard materials. | Plain error to rely on PSR details absent Shepard derivation. |
| Whether offenses occurred on different occasions | PSR shows separate occurrences under Letterlough factors. | Record insufficient to confirm separateness; could be same occasion. | Error; cannot determine separate occasions from PSR details alone. |
| Effect of error on substantial rights | Use of PSR inflated sentence under ACCA. | Not clearly prejudicial without PSR details. | Error affected substantial rights; resulted in miscarriage of justice. |
| Remand for new sentencing | VACATE and remand for proper ACCA determination. | Not applicable; merits re-sentencing. | Vacate and remand for new sentencing on ACCA issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court 2005) (limits use of non-inherent conviction details in ACCA)
- United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2005) (PSR can be used if from Shepard-approved sources or accuracy not challenged)
- United States v. Carr, 592 F.3d 636 (4th Cir. 2010) (defines 'occasions' as separate and distinct episodes)
- United States v. Letterlough, 63 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 1995) (notes factors for separate-occasion analysis)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error standard for appellate review)
- United States v. Cedelle, 89 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 1996) (miscarriage-of-justice standard for correcting errors)