United States v. James Dixon
805 F.3d 1193
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Dixon pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- At sentencing the district court treated two California robbery convictions (CPC § 211, 1983 & 1987) and one Nevada assault-with-deadly-weapon conviction (NRS § 200.471, 2002) as ACCA "violent felony" predicates and imposed the 15-year ACCA mandatory minimum.
- Dixon appealed only the sentence, arguing his CPC § 211 convictions do not categorically qualify as ACCA "violent felonies."
- The Ninth Circuit applied Taylor’s categorical approach and considered whether CPC § 211’s elements necessarily match the ACCA definition (use of force element or enumerated offenses).
- The court found CPC § 211 criminalizes some non-ACCA conduct (e.g., accidental use of force) and is not divisible into alternative elements permitting reliance on Shepard-type documents.
- Because CPC § 211 cannot categorically serve as an ACCA predicate, Dixon lacked three ACCA "violent felony" convictions; the court vacated the mandatory minimum and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPC § 211 is categorically a "violent felony" under the ACCA | Dixon: § 211 is not a categorical match because it reaches conduct (e.g., accidental force) outside ACCA definitions | Government: § 211 necessarily falls within generic robbery or extortion and thus qualifies as a violent felony | Held: § 211 is not a categorical match because it covers non-ACCA conduct |
| Whether § 211 is divisible into alternative elements enabling a modified categorical inquiry | Dixon: § 211 is not divisible; jury need not agree on means | Government: § 211’s disjunctive phrasing creates alternative elements permitting resort to charging/plea documents | Held: § 211 is indivisible—disjunctive phrases are alternative means, not elements |
| Whether the ACCA residual clause or generic robbery can rescue § 211 as a predicate | Dixon: residual clause is invalid; ACCA enumerated offenses do not include robbery | Government: many § 211 convictions amount to extortion or violent robbery and should count | Held: Residual clause is invalid (Johnson). ACCA enumerated list includes extortion but not robbery; § 211 sometimes matches extortion but sometimes does not, so it cannot categorically qualify |
| Effect on mandatory minimum sentence | Dixon: Without § 211 predicates, ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum does not apply | Government: two § 211 convictions counted, plus Nevada conviction, support ACCA | Held: Excluding § 211 convictions, Dixon lacks three ACCA predicates; mandatory minimum vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishing the categorical approach for predicate-offense matching)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (clarifying divisibility and limits on modified categorical inquiry)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. en banc discussion of categorical approach)
- United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (analyzing § 211 in relation to extortion/robbery distinctions)
- People v. Anderson, 252 P.3d 968 (Cal. 2011) (holding § 211 may be violated where force is accidental, showing § 211 reaches non-intentional force)