United States v. James Jones
914 F.3d 893
| 4th Cir. | 2019Background
- In 2008 James Eric Jones was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) to a mandatory minimum under the ACCA based on prior South Carolina convictions, including an assaulting/beating/wounding a law enforcement officer while resisting arrest (ABWO) conviction.
- At initial sentencing the court relied on multiple prior convictions as ACCA predicates; on appeal this Court affirmed. Later decisions narrowed which South Carolina offenses qualify as ACCA predicates.
- After Johnson v. United States (2015) invalidated the ACCA residual clause (and Welch made that retroactive), Jones sought collateral relief via a successive § 2255, arguing he no longer had three ACCA predicate "violent felonies."
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Government, holding Jones’s ABWO conviction qualified as an ACCA "violent felony" under the force clause; Jones appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit considered whether the categorical approach applies to the ABWO statute and whether the statute’s elements necessarily require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of "violent physical force" as defined in Johnson I.
- The Court concluded ABWO is indivisible for categorical analysis, examined South Carolina law and precedent (including Burton and Hemingway), and determined ABWO can be violated by conduct (e.g., spitting) that does not involve violent physical force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether South Carolina's ABWO offense is a "violent felony" under the ACCA force clause | ABWO does not necessarily involve violent physical force; South Carolina assault can be a rude/angry attempt or slight contact (e.g., spitting) that falls short of "violent force" required by Johnson I | ABWO necessarily involves force or violent force (statutory pairing with "beat" and "wound" elevates "assault"), and state AG guidance supports treating it as violent | The ABWO offense is not categorically an ACCA "violent felony" because South Carolina courts have applied ABWO to conduct (e.g., spitting) that does not involve violent physical force; vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (defines "physical force" under ACCA as "violent force" capable of causing pain or injury)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (invalidates ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (holds Johnson 2015 retroactive on collateral review)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (limits use of categorical approach and distinguishes divisible statutes)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (distinguishes elements from means; guides divisibility analysis)
- Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2019) (holds Florida robbery requiring force to overcome resistance qualifies under ACCA force clause)
- United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2016) (concluded South Carolina strong-arm robbery is an ACCA violent felony under the force clause)
- United States v. Hemingway, 734 F.3d 323 (4th Cir. 2013) (held South Carolina ABHAN assault does not categorically satisfy ACCA force clause)