United States v. Deante Dixon
16-10452
11th Cir.Jan 9, 2018Background
- In 2015 Deante Dixon pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); the firearm was manufactured outside Florida.
- Dixon had two prior Florida robbery convictions from 2008; the PSR and district court treated those convictions as "crimes of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 and enhanced his base offense level.
- With acceptance of responsibility, Dixon’s Guidelines offense level produced a range of 51–63 months; the district court sentenced him to 60 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
- Dixon appealed, arguing (1) Florida robbery is not a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines (elements clause, residual clause, or enumeration) and (2) § 922(g) is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
- The Eleventh Circuit concluded precedent binds it to treat Florida robbery as a crime of violence and to reject Dixon’s Commerce Clause challenge to § 922(g), and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida robbery is a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 | Dixon: Florida robbery does not qualify under the elements clause, residual clause, or commentary enumeration; relies on Descamps/Mathis/Johnson to undermine Lockley | Government: Lockley and subsequent Eleventh Circuit decisions bind the court; Florida robbery qualifies | Held: Bound by Lockley and its progeny; Florida robbery is a crime of violence under the Guidelines |
| Whether Johnson invalidates the Guidelines' residual clause | Dixon: Johnson's vagueness holding applies to the Guidelines' residual clause | Government: Beckles forecloses applying Johnson to the Guidelines | Held: Beckles controls; Johnson does not apply to the Guidelines' residual clause |
| Whether § 922(g) exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause authority (facial and as-applied) | Dixon: Possession is non-economic and does not substantially affect interstate commerce | Government: Precedent upholds § 922(g) under the Commerce Clause | Held: Circuit precedent upholds § 922(g); the challenge fails |
| Whether Mathis/Descamps undermine Lockley and related Eleventh Circuit precedent | Dixon: Those Supreme Court decisions abrogate Lockley’s reasoning | Government: Fritts and later Eleventh Circuit decisions reaffirm Lockley post-Descamps/Mathis | Held: Lockley remains binding; Mathis/Descamps do not abrogate it |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (held Florida robbery is a crime of violence under the Guidelines)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines' residual clause not subject to Johnson vagueness challenge)
- United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937 (11th Cir. 2016) (reaffirmed Lockley post-Descamps/Mathis for elements-clause analyses)
- United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2010) (upheld § 922(g) against Commerce Clause challenge)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (articulated limits of Congress's Commerce Clause power)