United States v. Dewayne Rockymore, 909 F.3d 167

Background

Defendant Dewayne Rockymore pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after police found a loaded gun in the car he occupied following a high-speed chase and crash.
Rockymore had prior Tennessee convictions: one burglary (which both sides agreed counted as a "violent felony") and three delivery-of-cocaine convictions.
The government sought an ACCA enhancement, which applies when a defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies or "serious drug offenses" (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)); a "serious drug offense" requires a statutory maximum term of 10+ years.
Tennessee’s sentencing framework has two layers: (1) a felony-based statute classifying offenses and authorizing broad maximum punishments (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111) and (2) a range-based statute that narrows permissible sentences based on offender’s criminal history (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112), producing mandatory ranges (Range I–III).
The district court classified Rockymore’s contested convictions as Class C felonies but found he was a Range I offender, giving each conviction a six-year statutory maximum under Tennessee law. Because six years is below the ACCA 10-year threshold, the district court declined to apply the ACCA enhancement.
The government appealed, arguing the felony-based statute (not the offender-range restriction) supplies the "maximum term of imprisonment" for ACCA purposes; the Sixth Circuit rejected that view and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't)	Defendant's Argument (Rockymore)	Held
Whether Tennessee’s felony-based statute alone supplies the "maximum term of imprisonment" for ACCA serious-drug-offense analysis	The felony-classification statute sets the applicable maximum (e.g., Class C = up to 15 years), so the convictions qualify as serious drug offenses	The state’s range-based statute limits the defendant’s actual statutory maximum based on criminal history (Range I = 3–6 years for Class C), so each contested conviction’s max is 6 years and not qualifying	The court held both Tennessee statutes must be considered; Range I capped Rockymore’s maximum at 6 years, so convictions were not ACCA serious drug offenses
Whether recidivist enhancements that the State never sought may be counted toward the ACCA maximum	The ACCA should consider the broader offense-based authorized maximum even if the State did not pursue offender-range enhancements	Only recidivist enhancements that a defendant actually faced (i.e., that the State sought or the defendant was subject to) can raise the applicable maximum for ACCA purposes	The court held recidivist enhancements are relevant only if the defendant was actually subject to them; because the State did not seek a higher range, they could not be counted
Whether ambiguities in applying Tennessee sentencing law should be resolved against the defendant	Gov't argued its reading is correct and supports ACCA enhancement	Rockymore argued any ambiguity must be resolved under the rule of lenity in favor of the defendant	The court applied the rule of lenity as a backstop, finding the State’s reading not sufficient to overcome ambiguity and resolving in favor of Rockymore
Whether plea bargains or post-conviction practices cited by the State change the statutory maximum analysis	Gov't relied on Tennessee decisions upholding out-of-range pleas or post-conviction deference to argue the felony statute controls	Rockymore noted those cases either involved waiver by plea or procedural limits on post-conviction review, and thus do not show the felony statute sets the non-waived statutory maximum	The court distinguished those precedents (plea waivers or procedural contexts) and held they do not alter the proper ACCA statutory-maximum inquiry

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Malone, 889 F.3d 310 (6th Cir.) (standard of review — de novo)
Rodriguez v. United States, 553 U.S. 377 (2008) (statutory "maximum term" inquiry requires consulting relevant state sentencing law)
United States v. Pruitt, 545 F.3d 416 (6th Cir.) (recidivist enhancements count only if the defendant actually faced them)
United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (rule of lenity applies to ambiguous criminal-penalty constructions)
Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381 (1980) (rule of lenity and penalties)
Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (explaining Tennessee sentencing classifications and procedural limits on post-conviction relief)
Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776 (Tenn. 2007) (illustrative of plea-bargained sentences exceeding offender range by waiver)