604 F. App'x 418
6th Cir.2015Background
- Amos pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); district court considered enhancement under ACCA § 924(e) and sentenced him to fifteen years minimum.
- Plea agreement included an appeal waiver restricting direct appeals except as to certain mandatory minimum determinations; Amos acknowledged the waiver during a Rule 11 colloquy.
- Probation report concluded Amos qualified as an armed career criminal based on three prior violent felonies, recommending the fifteen-year minimum.
- Amos disputed two December 15, 1997 offenses were committed on different occasions; he relied on the Shepard-documents framework to exclude a probable cause affidavit.
- The district court, at resentencing, concluded the offenses were committed on different occasions and imposed the ACCA minimum; the court of appeals previously held the probable cause affidavit qualified as a Shepard document.
- The government appealed, and the Sixth Circuit treated the appeal waiver as potentially controlling but ultimately affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the appeal waiver bar Amos's challenge to ACCA designation? | Amos argues waiver cannot bar challenge when ACCA leads to supramaximal sentence. | United States argues waiver governs, potentially barring supramaximal-penalty challenge. | Panel assumes first view for merits, denies mootness, and affirms. |
| May the district court use a Shepard-document (probable cause affidavit) to determine separate occasions under ACCA? | Amos contends Descamps forbids relying on Shepard documents here. | Government contends Shepard documents are permissible and probative for ACCA timing. | Descamps argument rejected; Shepard documents may be considered. |
| Were Amos's December 15 offenses committed on separate occasions under Hill’s test for ACCA purposes? | Amos contends offenses occurred in a single episode; no separate occasions. | ||
| Government argues offenses satisfied Hill’s three-prong disjunctive test for separation. | Under Hill, offenses were committed on separate occasions; sentence upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 543 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court (2005)) (documents allowed to determine ACCA predicates)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (Supreme Court (2013)) (limits on document types for ACCA determinations)
- Hill v. United States, 440 F.3d 292 (6th Cir. 2006) (disjunctive three-factor test for separate occasions under ACCA)
- Jones v. United States, 673 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2012) (reiterates Hill framework for ACCA separation)
- Caruthers v. United States, 458 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2006) (appeal waivers interpreted strictly; ACCA context)
- Beals v. United States, 698 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2012) (strict construction of appeal waivers)