United States v. Brown
706 F. App'x 474
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Chad Brown pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; district court applied the ACCA and imposed a 15‑year mandatory sentence.
- ACCA enhancement requires three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on different occasions.
- Brown had two prior convictions for distributing a controlled substance (sales 15 days apart to the same informant) and a prior Oklahoma conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645).
- Brown argued (1) the two drug convictions were part of the same criminal episode and thus not separate predicates, (2) the § 645 conviction is not a violent felony, and (3) the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the separateness and statutory‑analysis questions de novo and affirmed the ACCA enhancement and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two drug convictions count as separate ACCA predicates | Brown: the repeat sales were part of the same criminal episode and should be treated as one offense | Government: sales occurred at distinct times so they are separate predicates | Held: convictions were separate; distinct times control (Delossantos precedent) |
| Whether Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 conviction is a "violent felony" under ACCA | Brown: § 645 does not categorically meet ACCA’s force element | Government: § 645 is divisible; the assault and battery with a dangerous weapon element satisfies ACCA | Held: § 645 is divisible; the assault-and-battery-with-a-dangerous-weapon element is a violent felony |
| Whether ACCA is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Brown: judicial interpretations are inconsistent, depriving notice | Government: no showing of lack of notice or arbitrary application in this case | Held: Vagueness challenge rejected; Brown did not show ACCA was vague as applied to him |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Delossantos, 680 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2012) (distinct times suffice to treat separate drug offenses as separate ACCA predicates)
- United States v. Johnson, 130 F.3d 1420 (10th Cir. 1997) (sales days apart are separate offenses)
- United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 1999) (contrasting approach treating related repeat sales as a single guideline offense)
- United States v. Titties, 852 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2017) (framework for divisible statutes and modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Taylor, 843 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2016) (holding § 645 divisible and that assault-and-battery-with-a-dangerous-weapon is categorically a crime of violence)
- United States v. Michel, 446 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2006) (vagueness challenges reviewed as-applied when First Amendment not implicated)