United States v. Calvin Matchett
802 F.3d 1185
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Officer Smith observed Matchett carrying an unboxed flat-screen TV in a residential neighborhood on a weekday morning, stopped him, and asked for identification.
- Matchett’s demeanor changed (tense, looking to flee) and he patted pockets but avoided touching his right front pocket; Officer Smith frisked him and felt a handgun.
- A struggle lasting over three minutes ensued; the loaded gun was ultimately found on the sidewalk and Officer Smith suffered abrasions and bloody knees.
- Matchett was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession), moved to suppress the gun, pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal suppression denial, and was sentenced to 96 months.
- Presentence calculations included (1) a § 2K2.1(a)(2) enhancement treating two prior Florida burglary-of-unoccupied-dwelling convictions as "crimes of violence," and (2) a § 3C1.2 two-level enhancement for recklessly creating substantial risk during flight.
Issues
| Issue | Matchett’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of stop and frisk | Stop and frisk lacked reasonable suspicion or basis to search for weapons | Officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop and a reasonable belief his safety was threatened, justifying frisk | Stop and frisk were lawful; suppression denial affirmed |
| Vagueness challenge to Guidelines residual clause | The residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson | Guidelines are advisory and vagueness doctrine (due process) does not apply to advisory guidelines | Vagueness doctrine does not apply to advisory Guidelines; challenge rejected |
| Whether Florida burglary of unoccupied dwelling is a "crime of violence" | Florida offense is not generic burglary and thus not categorically an enumerated "burglary of a dwelling" | Even if not generic burglary, the Florida offense falls under the residual clause as it poses similar risk to listed offenses | The Florida offense qualifies under the residual clause as a crime of violence; enhancement affirmed |
| § 3C1.2 enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight | No attempt to flee or recklessly endanger others; enhancement improper | Wrestling with officer for >3 minutes while a loaded gun was in pocket created substantial risk and was reckless | Enhancement under § 3C1.2 was proper; district court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines are advisory and sentencing requires individualized assessment)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (holding the Sentencing Guidelines advisory post-Booker)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (discussing scope of "burglary of a dwelling" and curtilage)
- Sokolow v. United States, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion assessed under the totality of circumstances)