United States v. Calvin Cogdill, 130 F.4th 523

Calvin Cogdill pleaded guilty in 2022 to being a felon in possession of a firearm, a charge ordinarily carrying a maximum 10-year sentence.
Based on three prior drug convictions—including two in Tennessee (June and September 2014) and one in Georgia (2003)—the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, imposing a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Cogdill objected to the ACCA enhancement, arguing the two 2014 Tennessee offenses were not committed on "occasions different from one another" and that such a fact must be determined by a jury, not a judge, under the Sixth Amendment.
The district court overruled Cogdill’s objections, relying on existing precedent, and sentenced him to 15 years.
On appeal, while the case was pending, the Supreme Court decided Erlinger v. United States, which held that a jury—not a judge—must determine whether prior offenses were committed on separate occasions for ACCA purposes. The Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s original decision and remanded for reconsideration under Erlinger.

Issue	Cogdill's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district judge, rather than a jury, can determine if prior convictions occurred on separate occasions under ACCA post-Erlinger	Only a jury can decide the occasions inquiry under the Sixth Amendment	The judge can decide using judicial records; error is harmless due to the time gap	Sixth Circuit agrees it was error for the judge to decide, but reviews for harmlessness
Whether the district court’s error in making the occasions finding was harmless	The error is structural and cannot be harmless; automatic reversal required	The error is harmless because the offenses were months apart	Court finds error was not harmless, since reasonable doubt exists about jury's possible view
Use of Shepard documents to show timing, proximity, and relationship of prior offenses for ACCA purposes	Insufficient under Sixth Amendment; facts of offenses must be proven to a jury	Sufficient—dates and counties alone prove different occasions	Court rules record was too scant to find harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether Double Jeopardy bars retrial/enhanced sentencing under ACCA on remand	New proceedings would violate Double Jeopardy	District court may address this in first instance if government seeks ACCA sentence again	Court defers Double Jeopardy issue to district court on remand

Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022) (clarified multi-factor occasions test under ACCA)
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) (jury must decide separate occasions inquiry under ACCA)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty must be found by jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact increasing minimum sentence must be found by jury)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (guidance on when harmless error applies to omitted elements in jury instructions)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (defined permissible records for proving prior convictions)
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986) (limits on harmless error analysis—structural errors require reversal)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (denial of right to jury verdict is structural error)