United States v. Harold Melbie, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8214
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Harold Melbie convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- District court found Melbie an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) and imposed the 15-year mandatory minimum based on three prior qualifying felonies.
- Central dispute: whether a 1999 federal conviction for a drug conspiracy (Oct 15, 1995–Sept 19, 1996) and an Iowa possession-with-intent conviction for ~7 grams of methamphetamine on Sept 19, 1996, count as one or two separate predicate convictions.
- The federal PSR and plea materials showed the possession occurred during the conspiracy, related to the conspiracy’s conduct, and Melbie’s active involvement ended when arrested on Sept 19, 1996.
- The district court counted both convictions separately; Melbie appealed, arguing the convictions are not "committed on occasions different from one another" as required by § 924(e)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conspiracy conviction and the related possession conviction count as separate predicate offenses under § 924(e)(1) | Melbie: convictions overlap in time and substance; no time lapse or substantive discontinuity, so they should count as one conviction | Government/District Court: possession was a discrete, "punctuated" episode within the conspiracy and thus a separate criminal episode qualifying as a second predicate | Court affirmed: the possession was a separate criminal episode with limited duration and counts as a separate predicate conviction |
| Whether Willoughby factors (time, distance, substantive continuity) control where one predicate is a conspiracy and the other a related act | Melbie: Willoughby factors show lack of separateness here | Government: Johnston and Gray govern in conspiracy-context; "punctuated" nature of act controls separateness | Court held Johnston and Gray control; Willoughby’s factors do not displace the earlier controlling precedent |
| Whether Melbie’s Apprendi challenge requires jury finding of prior convictions | Melbie: jury must find prior convictions beyond reasonable doubt under Apprendi | Government: Almendarez-Torres controls, prior convictions need not be submitted to jury | Court rejected Apprendi claim, followed Almendarez-Torres |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnston, 220 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2000) (conspiracy and a related possession can be separate predicate convictions when the related act is a distinct, punctuated episode)
- United States v. Gray, 152 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 1998) (separate criminal episodes may be part of a series but still constitute distinct predicate offenses)
- United States v. Van, 543 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2008) (interpreting § 924(e) separateness requirement and relying on Johnston)
- United States v. Willoughby, 653 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2011) (identified time, physical distance, and substantive continuity factors for separateness analysis)
- United States v. Tate, 633 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2011) (applied Van and § 924(e) analysis concerning related prior convictions)