United States v. Dancy
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7556
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Dancy, a convicted felon, was charged with possessing a firearm and ammunition after prior felony conviction (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and sentenced under the ACCA to 180 months.
- Police observed a street shooting aftermath and a man matching the shooter’s description near a bar; a subsequent stop and frisk targeted Dancy based on that description.
- During the encounter, Walls felt a firearm in Dancy’s pocket after a tense struggle, leading to arrest and seizure of the gun components; another man was found with a different gun nearby.
- Dancy and Jones conversed in custody; Telford overheard parts of the cell-block conversation, which the government introduced at trial as adoptive or contextual statements.
- At sentencing, the district court determined Dancy had at least three ACCA predicate offenses, including ABPO and ABDW convictions, and imposed the statutory minimum of 180 months after downward departure.
- On appeal, Dancy challenges the suppression ruling, evidentiary decisions, and the ACCA predicate determinations, while the government cross-appeals on possession evidence and related issues; the First Circuit affirms both conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop and frisk violated Fourth Amendment rights | Dancy argues the initial seizure lacked probable cause and the frisk was unlawful | Dancy contends the stop was invalid and the frisk unnecessary | The stop and frisk were reasonable under Terry standards given suspicion and escalating circumstances |
| Whether the cell-block statements were properly admitted | Dancy asserts hearsay/prejudicial error from Telford’s testimony about the conversation | Government contends statements were adoptive admission or context for Dancy's own remarks | Admissibility deemed not harmful; any error was not likely to affect the outcome |
| Whether the non-testifying evidence or closing argument deprived Dancy of a fair trial | Dancy claims prosecutorial misstatement and prejudicial emphasis on unelicited material | Government argues curative instructions mitigated any prejudice | Any error was unlikely to affect the verdict; no mistrial warranted |
| Whether Massachusetts ABPO/ABDW predicates satisfy the ACCA residual/force clauses | Dancy argues ABPO/ABDW cannot be ACCA predicates if recklessness governs, under Begay/Johnson/Holloway | Goes that ABPO/ABDW include elements showing purposeful conduct, satisfying ACCA | ABPO qualifies under the ACCA residual clause; the court need not reach ABDW predicate in light of four predicates |
| Whether the district court erred in applying the ACCA to Dancy’s prior convictions | Dancy asserts Begay/Johnson/Holloway undermine earlier circuit law on ABPO/ABDW predicates | Government maintains established precedents remain valid and the state predicates fit ACCA | No reversal; ABPO predicates uphold ACCA qualification; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (requires similar risk and kind to enumerated offenses for residual clause)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010) (addressed force clause interpretation post Begay)
- Fernandez v. United States, 121 F.3d 777 (1st Cir. 1997) (ABPO and ACCA predicate status discussed in context )
- Am v. United States, 564 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2009) (ABDW is a predicate under related guidelines)
- United States v. Glover, 558 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2009) (ABDW and related predicates analyzed)