United States v. Hart, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5565

Hart was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Hart moved to suppress all evidence seized during a Terry stop, including a handgun found in the vehicle.
Massachusetts State Police officers pursued Hart after an escape from a youth detention center; Hart matched only race with escapees.
Officers observed Hart concealing an object from his waistband and then placing it in the car, creating reasonable suspicion.
The district court conducted a two-day suppression hearing; the court denied suppression and Hart pleaded guilty conditionally; Hart received an ACCA sentence based on three predicate offenses, including ABDW.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop based on reasonable suspicion?	Hart argues no reasonable suspicion.	Hart contends the stop was unlawful.	Yes, reasonable suspicion existed.
Was the firearm in plain view after the stop?	Hart argues the gun was not plainly visible.	State troopers testified it was in plain view.	The district court's plain-view finding was upheld.
Does Massachusetts ABDW qualify as an ACCA predicate under residual clause?	Hart relies on Holloway to argue it does not.	Glover and Begay support its qualification.	ABDW qualifies under ACCA's residual clause.
Does resisting arrest also qualify as an ACCA predicate?	Hart did not rely on this at sentencing.	Resisting arrest should qualify.	Yes, resisting arrest qualifies as an ACCA predicate.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion and stop framework)
Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (flight supports reasonable suspicion)
Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (framework for ACCA residual clause analysis)
Holloway, 630 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 2011) (state-law construction and ACCA predicate scope)
Dancy, 640 F.3d 455 (1st Cir. 2011) (helps determine if ABDW is ACCA predicate under force/residual clause)