United States v. David Lockett
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5154
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Lockett pleaded guilty in 2010 to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The government sought application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), arguing Lockett had three predicate convictions (two undisputed plus one of his 1990 drug convictions made qualifying by an Illinois recidivist enhancement).
- Illinois 1990 drug convictions carried four-year sentences in the record, but state recidivist law could have exposed Lockett to higher maximums (10–14 years) if a recidivist finding were part of the record.
- The district court, relying on Perkins, found the 1990 convictions could qualify and, relying on Burnett, rejected Lockett’s restoration-of-rights argument, sentenced him to the ACCA mandatory 15-year minimum.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit considered whether the record actually showed Lockett faced the enhanced recidivist maximums (per Rodriguez), and whether he therefore had three ACCA predicates.
Issues
| Issue | Lockett's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lockett’s 1990 drug convictions qualify as ACCA predicates given Illinois recidivist enhancement | The record lacks evidence that the recidivist enhancement applied; thus the convictions do not meet ACCA’s 10+ year maximum requirement | Perkins allows using the statutory maximum exposure (including recidivist enhancement) to determine ACCA qualification | Reversed: under Rodriguez the government must show the record of conviction includes the recidivist finding; no such evidence here, so the 1990 convictions do not qualify |
| Whether restoration-of-civil-rights letter (1995) prevents use of 1990 convictions as ACCA predicates | Restoration would remove the convictions from consideration | Government argued restoration did not apply; district court agreed | Not reached: appellate court found insufficient predicates even without resolving restoration issue |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perkins, 449 F.3d 794 (7th Cir.) (held maximum for ACCA inquiry is statutory maximum for the offense)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 553 U.S. 377 (2008) (court must find recidivist enhancement in record of conviction before counting enhanced maximum for ACCA)
- Kirkland v. United States, 687 F.3d 878 (7th Cir.) (standard of review: legal questions de novo, factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Burnett, 641 F.3d 894 (7th Cir.) (addressed restoration-of-rights implications for predicate convictions)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (confirmed that recidivist finding must be part of the record of conviction)
- United States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554 (4th Cir.) (interpreting Rodriquez’s evidentiary requirement)
Conclusion: The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for resentencing because the government failed to show the record of Lockett’s 1990 convictions included a recidivist finding that would make them ACCA "serious drug offenses," leaving Lockett with fewer than three predicates and thus not subject to the ACCA mandatory minimum.