United States v. Bryan Shane Sneed
700 F. App'x 990
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Bryan Sneed was convicted by a jury of attempted sexual enticement of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) and of possessing a firearm in relation to that offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- The § 924(c) count required that the underlying offense be a "crime of violence" as defined in § 924(c)(3)(A) or (B); § 2422(b) lacks a physical-force element, so the case turns on § 924(c)(3)(B) (the "residual" or substantial-risk clause).
- Sneed raised for the first time on appeal the argument that § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States, and therefore § 2422(b) cannot qualify as a crime of violence for § 924(c) purposes.
- Plain-error review applies because Sneed did not raise the vagueness challenge in district court; under plain error the appellant must show clear error that affected substantial rights and the fairness/integrity of proceedings.
- The Eleventh Circuit relied on circuit precedent holding § 2422(b) categorically presents a substantial risk of physical force (Keelan; Searcy) and followed a recent Eleventh Circuit panel decision (Ovalles) holding Johnson does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2422(b) is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(B) because § 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness under Johnson | Sneed: Johnson invalidates residual clauses like § 924(c)(3)(B), so § 2422(b) cannot qualify | Government: § 924(c)(3)(B) is materially different and not unconstitutionally vague; precedent treats § 2422(b) as a crime of violence | Affirmed: No plain error. Johnson does not control; § 924(c)(3)(B) upheld and § 2422(b) qualifies as a crime of violence under circuit law |
Key Cases Cited
- Keelan v. United States, 786 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2015) (held § 2422(b) involves substantial risk of physical force and is a crime of violence)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. _, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Searcy v. United States, 418 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluded § 2422(b)-type offenses present substantial risk and qualify under similar definitions)
- Prickett v. United States, 839 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2016) (held Johnson does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B))
- Hill v. United States, 832 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2016) (held Johnson does not apply to § 924(c)(3)(B))
- Taylor v. United States, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2016) (held § 924(c)(3)(B) survives Johnson)
- Cardena v. United States, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016) (concluded Johnson invalidated § 924(c)(3)(B))
- Aguillard v. United States, 217 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2000) (plain-error principle: no plain error where issue unsettled and circuits split)