United States v. James Taylor
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21948
6th Cir.2012Background
- Taylor owned a Lansing, Michigan convenience store and SNAP-authorized benefits were redeemed there during undercover USDA activity; cash was exchanged for SNAP benefits which funded illegal drugs, and a firearm was exchanged for SNAP benefits.
- Taylor pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States, SNAP fraud, drug distribution, and felon in possession of a firearm; ACCA enhancement applied based on prior convictions, yielding a Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
- Graves, a store employee and friend of Taylor, assisted in SNAP-for-cash and drug transactions; he sold a firearm to a confidential informant and also faced an ACCA enhancement with the same Guidelines range of 188–235 months, sentenced to 200 months.
- Taylor challenged ACCA as to whether his Michigan conviction for attempted larceny from the person qualifies as a violent felony; district court declined to modify, and Taylor was sentenced accordingly.
- Graves challenged the sentence on grounds of imperfect entrapment, arguing the government’s encouragement warranted a below-Guidelines sentence; the district court denied a variance, and Graves appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed both sentences, holding Taylor’s attempted larceny from the person qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA and rejecting the vagueness and entrapment challenges on the records presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempted larceny from the person is a violent felony under ACCA | Taylor argues Begay/related analysis prevents the classification. | Taylor contends attempted larceny is not a violent felony under ACCA. | Yes; attempted larceny from the person is a violent felony under ACCA. |
| Whether the residual clause remains constitutionally sufficient for ACCA purposes | Taylor seeks to void the residual clause as vague. | Taylor argues residual clause invalid under Begay framework. | Residual clause is sufficiently definite; remains valid. |
| Whether the district court adequately addressed Graves’s imperfect entrapment argument | Graves contends the court failed to meaningfully consider imperfect entrapment. | Graves argues the court did not explicitly address the theory on the record. | No abuse of discretion; record shows the court considered sentencing factors and rejected the argument. |
| Whether Taylor and Graves were properly sentenced as armed career criminals | Government contends ACCA enhancement applies; requests within-Guidelines sentence. | Defendants challenge scope of ACCA and variance analyses. | Both sentences were proper under ACCA and related guidelines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 2008) (redefines residual-clause analysis under ACCA)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (Supreme Court, 2011) (emphasizes risk comparison in residual-clause analysis)
- Payne v. United States, 163 F.3d 371 (6th Cir. 1998) (larceny from the person as a violent felony under ACCA)
- Jones v. United States, 675 F.3d 1013 (6th Cir. 2012) (applies Begay-like reasoning in residual-clause scrutiny)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court, 2007) (concerning risk and confrontation in burglary-style offenses)
- Liou v. United States, 491 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2007) (en banc consideration of sentencing-variance preservation)
- Vonner v. United States, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc standard for reviewing sentencing determinations)