United States v. Floyd Evans
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4
8th Cir.2014Background
- Evans pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(a) and 924(e)(1).
- The district court sentenced Evans to 180 months as an armed career offender based on three prior convictions under ACCA.
- Evans appeals asserting: (a) ACCA residual clause is void for vagueness; (b) Sixth Amendment error in treating two domestic violence convictions as on separate occasions; (c) prior convictions not charged in the indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted.
- The court reviews de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate and reviews constitutional claims de novo.
- The court affirms the district court, rejecting Evans’s challenges as lacking merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the ACCA residual clause vague? | Evans argues § 924(e)(1) is vague. | The government contends it provides guidance to conform conduct to the law. | No merit; residual clause not unconstitutionally vague. |
| Did the district court violate the Sixth Amendment by determining separate occasions for the DV convictions? | Date determinations were factual, should have been jury-determined. | Judges may resolve whether prior felonies were on separate occasions. | No Sixth Amendment violation; judge may determine dates/of occasions. |
| Must prior convictions used for enhancement be charged, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or admitted? | Particulars of prior convictions must be charged and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | Apprendi/ Almendarez-Torres permit use without jury finding and charging. | No Sixth Amendment violation; government not required to charge/prove prior convictions as such. |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (rejected vagueness challenge to ACCA residual clause)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (vagueness of residual clause rejected)
- Derby v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2858 (2011) (vagueness of residual clause rejected)
- United States v. Brown, 734 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirms evaluation of ACCA predicates)
- Ramsey, 498 F. App'x 653 (8th Cir.) (affirm district court on same lines)
- United States v. Richardson, 483 F. App'x 302 (8th Cir. 2012) (PSR-based date findings not Sixth Amendment error)
- United States v. Wilson, 406 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2005) (no Sixth Amendment violation for separate-occasion findings)
- United States v. Davidson, 527 F.3d 703 (8th Cir.) (consideration of offenses and facts to determine occasions)