United States v. Geddie
125 F. Supp. 3d 592
E.D.N.C.2015Background
- Defendant pled guilty February 12, 2015 to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924, with no written plea agreement.
- Probation calculated his criminal history as Category V and total offense level as 30, yielding a Guidelines range of 151–188 months if followed.
- Statutory sentence cap at 120 months applies unless ACCA aggravates sentence due to three prior violent felonies.
- Government contends defendant has three ACCA-qualifying convictions for violent felonies; ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Dispute centers on whether North Carolina AWDWISI (assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury) is a violent felony under ACCA.
- Court previously found AWDWISI not a ‘violent felony’ under the Guidelines; issue now is whether the NC statute is divisible and whether AWDWISI can serve as a predicate under ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is AWDWISI a violent felony under ACCA? | Gov argues AWDWISI fits ACCA’s use-of-force standard. | Defendant contends AWDWISI lacks requisite violent-force element and thus is not a violent felony. | AWDWISI is not a violent felony under ACCA. |
| Is North Carolina § 14-32(b) divisible for a modified categorical approach? | Gov relies on Vinson to treat the statute as divisible. | Defendant argues statute is not divisible due to its elements and structure. | Statute is not divisible; modified categorical approach not applicable. |
| If divisible were permitted, does AWDWISI admit multiple culpability degrees affecting ACCA analysis? | Gov argues different culpable states could trigger divisibility definitions. | AWDWISI's general intent element means varying culpability is not distinct offenses. | Divisibility arguments lacking merit; general intent satisfies AWDWISI as a single offense. |
| Does the use-of-force clause of ACCA require force directed at a person? | Gov analogizes AWDWISI to a battery with force toward a person. | AWDWISI’s elements do not require force against a specific person. | Use-of-force concept not satisfied when force is not directed against a person; AWDWISI fails as violent felony. |
| Is AWDWISI categorically excluding recklessness or negligence for ACCA purposes? | Gov suggests a recklessness standard could qualify. | AWDWISI can be satisfied by criminal negligence, undermining the violent felony label under ACCA. | AWDWISI can be satisfied by negligence, thus not a violent felony under ACCA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vinson, 794 F.3d 418 (4th Cir. 2015) (divisibility of a statute governing domestic violence under MCDV analysis)
- Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (U.S. 2014) (distinguishes MCDV use of force from ACCA use of force; force threshold difference)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2004) (use of force requiring more than negligent conduct)
- Bejarano-Urrutia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 444 (4th Cir. 2005) (limitations on ‘use of force’ for crime-of-violence determinations)
- Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. 2013) (defining 'violent felony' for Fourth Circuit under generic approach)
- Omargharib v. Holder, 775 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2014) (elements vs. means in divisibility analysis)