United States v. Gene Ward, Jr.
707 F. App'x 165
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Gene Ward, Jr. pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Probation recommended a base offense level of 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) because Ward had a prior felony conviction for North Carolina common-law robbery, a purported "crime of violence."
- Ward objected, arguing North Carolina common-law robbery does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence under the Guidelines.
- The district court overruled the objection after determining Ward used a shotgun in the robbery and sentenced him to 51 months (within the Guidelines range).
- The Fourth Circuit held the district court erred by examining the underlying facts of the prior conviction (modified categorical approach) but deemed the error harmless because North Carolina common-law robbery categorically qualifies as a crime of violence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.C. common-law robbery categorically qualifies as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (as incorporated into § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A)) | Ward: It does not categorically qualify. | Government: It does qualify. | The conviction categorically qualifies as a crime of violence; enhancement stands. |
| Whether the district court improperly relied on facts underlying the prior conviction (modified categorical approach) | Ward: Court impermissibly examined underlying facts to find use of a shotgun. | Government: Court’s fact inquiry supported the enhancement. | Court erred in using underlying facts, but error was harmless given categorical qualification. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dozier, 848 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2017) (describing the categorical approach to prior offenses)
- United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2016) (explaining courts must examine only offense elements and fact of conviction)
- United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2017) (clarifying the realistic-probability inquiry for categorical analysis)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (authorizing the modified categorical approach only for divisible statutes)
- United States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding N.C. common-law robbery is indivisible; modified categorical approach inapplicable)
- United States v. Jones, 740 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2014) (holding that an improper use of the modified categorical approach can be harmless if the conviction categorically qualifies)