United States v. Farrell
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3261
1st Cir.2012Background
- Farrell, a felon, was convicted of felon-in-possession of a firearm and faced a 15-year ACCA sentence due to three prior violent-felony convictions.
- Prior convictions: two Pennsylvania burglaries and a Massachusetts breaking-and-entering.
- PSR calculated ACCA predicate and Guidelines range of 188–235 months; defense did not object; district court sentenced at the bottom of the range, 180 months.
- On appeal, Farrell contends none of the predicates are ACCA-qualifying violent felonies and that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting.
- The panel reviews for plain error due to no objection below and remands for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Farrell’s three predicates qualify as violent felonies under ACCA? | Farrell argues predicates are not ACCA-violent felonies. | Government contends predicates include three violent felonies (generated by burglary/breaking-and-entering classifications). | Partial: 1980 MA breaking-and-entering does not qualify; remand for resentencing. |
| What is the proper standard of review for unobjected ACCA predicates? | Plain error review should apply. | N/A or not argued. | Plain error standard applied; review for obviousness and impact on rights. |
| Whether Shepard documents properly identify the exact predicate offense when a statute covers multiple offenses | Use of Shepard documents permitted to determine the exact offense. | Limited permissible evidence; cannot rely on police reports. | Appropriate use of Shepard; still concluded 1980 MA B&E not within ACCA residual clause. |
| Did Massachusetts breaking-and-entering statutes fit the ACCA residual clause for a vessel/ship? | Breaking-and-entering of a vessel could pose similar risk to generic burglary. | Massachusetts “ship/vessel” scope is not sufficiently similar in kind or risk to generic burglary. | No; Farrell’s 1980 MA B&E conviction does not fall within ACCA residual clause; plain-error reversal on that predicate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 F.3d 575 (U.S. 1990) (establishes categorical approach to ACCA burglary analysis)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (permissible records for identifying the predicate offense; no police reports)
- United States v. Holloway, 630 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 2011) (defines residual clause and permissible/impermissible comparison)
- United States v. James, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (residual clause scope includes attempted burglary in some contexts)
- United States v. Sanchez-Ramirez, 570 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2009) (applying James to a Florida burglary variant)
- United States v. Giggey, 551 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2008) (rules for identifying the precise offense when statute covers multiple offenses)
- United States v. Giggey, 589 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2009) (second stage on offense identification)
- United States v. Mayer, 560 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (relevance of state burglary scope to ACCA residual clause)
- United States v. Brown, 631 F.3d 573 (1st Cir. 2011) (Massachusetts non-dwelling burglary not sufficiently like generic burglary under ACCA)
- United States v. Willings, 588 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2009) (guidelines vs ACCA overlap in violent felony analysis)