United States v. Hamilton, 235 F. Supp. 3d 1229

Background

In 2005 Raymond Mark Hamilton pled guilty to possession of a firearm/ammunition after a felony and was sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) to 190 months based on seven prior violent-felony convictions listed in the PSR.
The seven priors included four burglaries (three Oklahoma second-degree burglaries, one Louisiana simple burglary), two California DUI/assault-related offenses, and one Oklahoma robbery with a firearm.
After Johnson v. United States invalidated ACCA’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, Hamilton filed a pro se § 2255 motion arguing he no longer qualifies as an ACC because some predicates relied on the residual clause.
The government conceded some priors did not qualify (the DUIs) but argued harmless-error: at least three other priors independently qualify under the elements or enumerated clauses, so no relief is warranted.
The central dispute: whether the Oklahoma and Louisiana burglary convictions qualify as ACCA predicates under the elements or enumerated-offense clause after Mathis, or whether the sentencing relied on the now-invalid residual clause.
The court concluded (1) the record is silent regarding which clause the sentencing court relied upon and a defendant need not show actual reliance when the record is unclear, (2) Mathis applies on collateral review to determine harmlessness, and (3) the Oklahoma and Louisiana burglary statutes list locations as means (not elements) and therefore are categorically broader than generic burglary and do not qualify as ACCA predicates.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant may obtain Johnson relief when the sentencing record is silent about which ACCA clause was relied upon	Johnson error removed a basis for ACCA; defendant need not show the court actually relied on the residual clause when record is silent	Government contended relief requires proof the court sentenced under the residual clause	Court: where record is silent, defendant need not prove actual reliance; here court likely relied on residual clause and has grave doubt about harmlessness, so Johnson opens collateral relief
Whether Mathis may be considered on collateral review to assess whether burglary priors qualify under the enumerated clause	Mathis affects whether the burglary convictions alternatively qualify, so court should apply Mathis when assessing harmlessness	Government did not object to Mathis consideration but argued some priors still qualify	Court: Mathis may be applied to determine harmlessness once Johnson permits collateral review; court will use current law to assess enumerated-clause qualification
Whether Oklahoma second-degree burglary is divisible (elements) or indivisible (means) for ACCA purposes	Hamilton: the listed locations are means; statute broader than generic burglary, so categorical approach excludes these priors	Government: Oklahoma law and jury instructions show the location is an element, supporting divisibility and modified categorical approach	Court: locations are means under Mathis; Oklahoma §1435 is broader than generic burglary and the convictions do not qualify as ACCA predicates
Whether Louisiana simple burglary qualifies as an ACCA predicate	Hamilton: statute lists locations (vehicles, watercraft, cemetery) making it broader than generic burglary	Government: (similar to Oklahoma argument) might treat locations as elements	Court: Louisiana statute’s list are means; categorically broader than generic burglary; does not qualify as ACCA predicate

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (U.S. 2016) (holding Johnson announced a substantive rule with retroactive effect on collateral review)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (U.S. 2016) (limits modified categorical approach; distinguishes alternative elements from alternative means)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (standard for collateral relief: error must have substantial and injurious effect)
O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1995) (grave-doubt standard for harmlessness at sentencing)
In re Adams, 825 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2016) (granting leave where record unclear which ACCA clause applied)
United States v. Little, 829 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2016) (remanding for resentencing where district court relied on both elements and residual clauses)
United States v. Edwards, 836 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2016) (applying Mathis; treating location lists in burglary statutes as means)
United States v. Green, 55 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1995) (recognizing Oklahoma § 1435 covers broader conduct than generic burglary)