United States v. Carl Miller
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13191
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Miller pled guilty in 2011 to felon in possession of a firearm, and the government sought ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum based on three prior felonies.
- Miller admitted two burglary convictions qualified as violent felonies; he contested a third offense— Wisconsin short-barreled shotgun possession under Wis. Stat. § 941.28(2).
- The district court denied Miller’s residual-clause challenge relying on United States v. Upton, which treated a similar Illinois offense as a violent felony.
- Miller argued post-Upton Supreme Court decisions require a different residual-clause analysis; the Seventh Circuit agreed and reevaluated the standard.
- The court applies a categorical approach, examining the offense’s elements rather than a defendant’s conduct, to decide whether short-barreled shotgun possession falls within the residual clause.
- Holding: mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun is not a violent felony under ACCA; Miller’s sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun qualify as an ACCA residual-clause violent felony? | Miller contends possession is violent felony under residual clause after Sykes and Begay. | The government argues possession can be framed as violent under residual clause due to inherent danger. | No; mere possession does not satisfy residual clause risk standard. |
| What framework governs residual-clause analysis post-Begay and Sykes? | Approach should align with post-Upton developments, focusing on risk created by possession. | Residual clause applies to similar risk to enumerated crimes; Begay/Sykes guide risk evaluation. | Adopt Begay/Sykes framework; risk-based, not purely inherent-violence. |
| Should the court rely on the Guidelines’ Application Notes to interpret ACCA? | Application Notes encourage treating sawed-off shotgun possession as violent. | Notes are not controlling for ACCA; cannot rely on them to overrule statutory text. | Notes not decisive; do not determine ACCA residual-clause meaning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (enumerated crimes guide residual-clause scope; DUI is not akin to listed crimes)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (S. Ct. 2011) (risk-based residual-clause analysis; limits Begay’s purposeful/violent language)
- United States v. Upton, 512 F.3d 394 (7th Cir. 2008) (possession of a sawed-off shotgun treated as violent felony under residual clause)
- United States v. Fife, 624 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2010) (categorical approach; examine offense as ordinarily committed)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (confrontation-based risk in burglary; informs risk-centric residual analysis)
- Hampton v. United States, 675 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2012) (possession crimes typically passive; focus on ordinary case risk)
- McGill v. United States, 618 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2010) (possession of short-barreled shotgun not a violent felony under ACCA)
- Amos v. United States, 501 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2007) (possession of sawed-off shotgun not fitting residual-clause risk)
- Vincent v. United States, 575 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2009) (possession of sawed-off shotgun discussed as enabling violence; not controlling for ACCA)
- Raupp v. United States, 677 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2012) (Guidelines’ crime-of-violence note discussed for interpretive cues)