United States v. Frank M. Howard
742 F.3d 1334
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Howard was charged with felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and, at sentencing, the government relied on Alabama third-degree burglary convictions for ACCA enhancement.
- The ACCA requires a predicate that is a “violent felony”; Descamps limited the use of the modified categorical approach to divisible statutes.
- Eleventh Circuit had previously held Alabama third-degree burglary counts as ACCA predicates via Rainer, applying the modified categorical approach.
- Descamps held the modified categorical approach applies only to divisible statutes; if indivisible, the approach is unavailable.
- Court vacated the ACCA enhancement and remanded for resentencing, allowing consideration of other factors but not ACCA-based punishment under the residual clause.
- The conviction for § 922(g)(1) was affirmed while the ACCA enhancement was set aside on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Howard’s §922(g)(1) conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. | Howard contends insufficiency of proof on knowing possession. | Howard asserts possible alternate inferences undermine possession. | Conviction affirmed (sufficient evidence). |
| Whether Alabama's §13A-7-7 third-degree burglary is a valid ACCA predicate post-Descamps. | Howard argues statute is non-generic/indivisible, cannot be ACCA predicate. | Prosecution argues divisible status allows modified categorical review. | Statute is non-generic and indivisible; cannot qualify as ACCA predicate. |
| Whether the modified categorical approach may be applied to Alabama’s third-degree burglary after Descamps. | Descamps restricts modified categorical approach to divisible statutes. | Rainer previously used modified categorical approach for Alabama statute. | Modified categorical approach does not apply to indivisible statutes; not used to count burglary convictions for ACCA. |
| Whether the district court could rely on Shepard documents and related materials on remand to determine ACCA predicate status. | Applies Descamps documents to determine the specific statute element matched. | Documents may be irrelevant if statute indivisible. | Descamps limits use of Shepard documents when the statute is indivisible; ACCA predicate not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rainer, 616 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2010) (held Alabama third-degree burglary could qualify as ACCA predicate via modified categorical approach before Descamps)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits modified categorical approach to divisible statutes)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defines generic burglary elements for ACCA)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (establishes use of limited documents in modified categorical analysis)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (supports comparison of statute elements to generic offense)