United States v. Conrad Blair
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22344
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Blair appeals a sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) for possession of a firearm by a felon.
- The district court applied ACCA, counting Blair’s prior felonies as violent felonies on separate occasions.
- Blair’s 1987 convictions include burglary and robbery in Pennsylvania; 1991 four counts of first-degree robbery.
- The district court treated Blair’s 1991 robberies as at least three separate pivotal offenses, giving him ACCA enhancement.
- Blair challenges the divisibility of the Pennsylvania robbery statute and whether the 1991 offenses were committed on different occasions.
- The court ultimately held that Blair had at least three qualifying predicate offenses from 1991, affirming the sentence implementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1987 convictions qualify as ACCA predicates | Blair argues 1987 burglary/robbery aren’t ACCA predicates | The government argues they qualify under ACCA | No error; 1987 predicates considered, but unnecessary to rely on them for the result |
| Whether 1991 robberies were committed on different occasions | Blair contends same- day pleas show same occasion | District Court properly found three distinct occasions | Affirmed; 1991 robberies occurred on separate days/locations with separate victims |
| Whether Descamps restricts use of modified categorical approach | Descamps bars relying on non-elemental facts | Descamps clarifies but allows modified approach for divisible statutes | Descamps upheld; proper use of modified categorical approach to identify the subsection |
| Whether Alleyne affects determinations of separateness | Alleyne requires jury findings for prior-conviction facts | Apprendi/Almendarez-Torres exception remains for prior convictions | Almendarez-Torres exception governs; Alleyne does not require jury factfinding for prior convictions |
| Whether the rule of lenity applies | Blair urges lenity due to ambiguity | Unpersuasive given clear record of separate offenses | Lenity not applicable; record supports ACCA predicate determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (U.S. 2013) (clarifies use of categorical vs modified categorical approaches under ACCA)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (establishes categorical approach for ACCA predicates)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (permissible to use certain judicial records in applying modified categorical approach)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1998) (prior-conviction exception to Apprendi recognized)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (extends Apprendi to mandatory-minimum facts; does not overrule Almendarez-Torres)