United States v. Clyde Fountain, 643 F. App'x 543

Cleveland police, prompted by a confidential informant, conducted two controlled buys tied to Clyde Fountain’s apartment; the informant was searched, fitted with an audio transmitter, and returned with suspected crack cocaine.
Detective Ricardo Ruffin swore an affidavit describing the controlled buys and the informant’s identification of Fountain and sought a warrant for Apartment 2 at the residence.
Officers detained Fountain outside the building, used keys found on him to enter the apartment, and discovered a handgun, ammunition, and crack cocaine.
Fountain moved to suppress the evidence and requested a Franks hearing to challenge the affidavit’s veracity; the district court denied suppression and the Franks hearing.
A jury convicted Fountain of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841).
At sentencing the probation report listed four ACCA predicates; the district court rejected one (1972 breaking-and-entering), upheld an Ohio aggravated-burglary conviction as a violent felony under the ACCA residual clause, and imposed an ACCA-enhanced 211-month sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying a Franks hearing to challenge the search-warrant affidavit	Fountain argued the affidavit misleadingly characterized two “controlled buys from the premises,” implying officers observed the informant enter Apartment 2 (and omitted that officers could not see the actual entry), warranting a Franks hearing	Government argued the affidavit accurately described controlled buys (audio transmitter, pre/post searches), omissions were not intentional or material, and probable cause did not require visual confirmation of entry into the specific unit	Denial of Franks hearing affirmed: defendant failed to make the heavy preliminary showing of intentional/reckless falsehood or a material omission necessary to require a hearing or suppression
Whether Fountain’s Ohio aggravated-burglary conviction qualified as an ACCA violent felony	Fountain argued the Ohio offense should not count as an ACCA predicate absent proof it matched a generic burglary element (and the residual clause was invalid)	Government relied on the district court’s classification under the ACCA residual clause (at that time) to support enhancement	Conviction affirmed; sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing because Johnson invalidated the ACCA residual clause and the district court must apply the (modified) categorical/Shepard inquiry to determine whether the Ohio conviction is an enumerated burglary

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant may obtain a hearing to challenge an affidavit only after a substantial preliminary showing of intentional or reckless falsehood or material omission)
Ventresca v. New York, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (warrant affidavits are to be read in a commonsense, realistic fashion)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical and modified categorical approaches for determining whether prior conviction is a generic offense)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2006) (plain-error standard for new suppression arguments first raised on appeal)
United States v. Rose, 714 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2013) (articulating Franks showing standards in this circuit)
United States v. Fowler, 535 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2008) (higher bar for Franks hearings based on omissions)
United States v. May, 399 F.3d 817 (6th Cir. 2005) (informant’s statements and corroborating details can link suspect to premises)