United States v. Duquette
778 F.3d 314
1st Cir.2015Background
- In January 2011 police recovered a rifle, shotgun, pistol, and ammunition from Joseph Duquette’s home after his 14‑year‑old daughter reported he had shown her the guns and threatened to kill the child’s mother. Duquette is a felon.
- A federal grand jury indicted Duquette under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of firearms and alleged he had multiple prior felony convictions, including two burglaries.
- The government charged Duquette as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which mandates a 15‑year minimum if a defendant has three prior violent felonies; Duquette pleaded guilty.
- The Sentencing Guidelines range was 135–168 months, but the ACCA statutory minimum (180 months) controlled if three priors qualified as “violent felonies.”
- The district court treated Duquette’s two Maine burglary convictions as ACCA violent felonies and imposed the 15‑year mandatory minimum. Duquette appealed solely challenging that classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duquette’s Maine burglary convictions qualify as ACCA “violent felonies” | Government: Maine burglary matches “generic burglary” and thus counts under ACCA | Duquette: Burglary must be of a dwelling (per Guidelines’ career‑offender definition); record lacks proof they were dwellings | Held: Maine statute tracks Taylor’s “generic burglary” elements; convictions qualify as ACCA violent felonies |
| Whether Giggey (Guidelines) precludes counting non‑residential burglary as a predicate | N/A | Duquette: Relies on Giggey to argue non‑dwelling burglaries shouldn’t count | Held: Giggey interprets the Guidelines’ narrower “crime of violence,” not the ACCA; ACCA includes non‑residential burglaries |
| Standard of review for whether priors qualify | Government: de novo review | Duquette: argued preservation issues; possibly plain error | Held: Court applies de novo review (and notes outcome same under plain error) |
| Whether being a career offender under the Guidelines affects ACCA mandatory minimum | N/A | Duquette: argued Guidelines’ definition should control classification | Held: Statutory ACCA definition controls; Guidelines status wouldn’t avoid statutory mandatory minimum (Dorsey) |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defines “generic burglary” for ACCA purposes as unlawful entry/remain in a building/structure with intent to commit a crime)
- United States v. Giggey, 551 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Guidelines’ career‑offender burglary is narrower—requires dwelling—than ACCA burglary)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (statutory mandatory minimum controls notwithstanding the Sentencing Guidelines)
- United States v. Pakala, 568 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard of review for whether prior conviction qualifies as ACCA predicate)