United States v. Dominic McDonald
850 F.3d 640
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- McDonald, a convicted felon on supervised release, sold six firearms (some stolen) over two weeks in October 2014 to a cooperating buyer, including firearms taken from a police officer’s home.
- He was indicted on four counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and pled guilty without a written plea agreement.
- The probation office recommended applying the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), based on prior convictions (two South Carolina second-degree burglaries and one North Carolina robbery with a dangerous weapon).
- The district court applied the ACCA, producing a mandatory-minimum 15-year exposure, and sentenced McDonald to 188 months imprisonment.
- The court expressly stated that, even if the ACCA did not apply, it would have imposed the same 188-month sentence via an upward variance/departure (from CHC V to VI), stacking concurrent 120-month terms on three counts and a consecutive 68-month term on the fourth.
- McDonald appealed, arguing the ACCA was wrongly applied (including that SC second-degree burglary is not a violent felony, the burglaries weren’t separate occasions, timeliness/waiver, and equal protection), but the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether South Carolina second-degree burglary convictions qualify as ACCA "violent felonies" and ACCA applies | McDonald: prior SC second-degree burglaries do not qualify; ACCA enhancement improper | Government: prior convictions qualify under Fourth Circuit precedent; ACCA applies | Court assumed arguendo ACCA inapplicable for harmless-error review but affirmed sentence because district court would have imposed same sentence without ACCA |
| Whether the burglaries were committed on separate occasions as ACCA requires | McDonald: prior offenses not on separate occasions | Government: prior convictions were separate | Court did not resolve; treated issue under harmless-error framework and affirmed sentence regardless |
| Whether McDonald waived ACCA challenge by untimely objection | McDonald: district court should not have considered untimely ACCA issue | Government: argument may be waived for appellate review | Court declined to resolve waiver because affirmation unnecessary on that ground |
| Whether ACCA classification violates equal protection | McDonald: ACCA creates impermissible classification | Government: ACCA constitutional | Court did not reach constitutional question; affirmed on harmless-error/§3553(a) grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review standard; procedural then substantive reasonableness)
- Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (appellate harmless-error review where error assumed)
- United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119 (4th Cir.) (assumed-error harmlessness inquiry for sentencing)
- United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300 (4th Cir.) (affirming sentence where upward variance would produce same result absent ACCA)
- United States v. Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156 (4th Cir.) (reasonableness of sentence under §3553(a))
- United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir.) (applying Savillon-Matute harmless-error approach)
- United States v. Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d 357 (4th Cir.) (no requirement that district court expressly state it would give same sentence absent ACCA)
- United States v. Wright, 594 F.3d 259 (4th Cir.) (treating SC second-degree burglary under ACCA analysis)