United States v. Jerome Curtis Stancil
4 F.4th 1193
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background
- Officers stopped Jerome Stancil for speeding; while checking his license they smelled marijuana and learned he was a convicted felon on probation.
- Backup arrived; an officer searched the vehicle and found a loaded Taurus .40 pistol under the driver’s floor mat.
- Stancil admitted ownership of the firearm; he was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession.
- Stancil moved to suppress the firearm as the product of an unlawful search; the magistrate and district court denied suppression after an evidentiary hearing.
- At sentencing the government proved three prior Virginia convictions under Va. Code § 18.2-248 (drug offenses), and the district court applied the ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Stancil appealed, arguing (1) his Virginia convictions do not categorically qualify as ACCA “serious drug offenses,” and (2) the search was unlawful because officer testimony was unreliable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior convictions under Va. Code § 18.2-248 qualify as ACCA “serious drug offenses” | Stancil: the statute criminalizes "giving" or social sharing as an accommodation (no profit), which is not distribution and thus not a serious drug offense under ACCA | Government: ACCA’s terms are interpreted broadly; circuit precedent treats statutes criminalizing giving/possession for other than personal use as predicates | Convictions under § 18.2-248 categorically qualify as ACCA serious drug offenses; three predicates trigger the 15-year mandatory minimum |
| Whether the search and seizure were unlawful (motion to suppress) | Stancil: officer testimony was inconsistent and some claimed details were omitted from reports, so the magistrate erred in crediting officers | Government: officers’ testimony was consistent and credible; odor of marijuana provided probable cause to search the vehicle | Credibility findings were not clearly erroneous; smell of marijuana gave probable cause to search; suppression denial affirmed |
| Preserved constitutional and procedural challenges (distinct occasions, Commerce Clause) | Stancil: district court could not determine prior convictions occurred on different occasions without jury finding; also § 922(g)(1) is beyond Congress’s Commerce Clause power | Government: courts may use Shepard documents to determine occasions; circuit precedent upholds § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause | Claims are foreclosed by precedent; Shepard documents may be used and § 922(g)(1) is constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollis v. United States, 958 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir. 2020) (holding "giving away" under a state statute can qualify as an ACCA predicate)
- United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (possession for other than personal use qualifies as a serious drug offense)
- United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) (state statute need not exactly match ACCA’s text to qualify)
- Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) (ACCA’s drug-offense definitions interpreted broadly)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (scope of inquiries incident to a traffic stop)
- Merricks v. Adkisson, 785 F.3d 553 (11th Cir. 2015) (smell of marijuana provides probable cause to search a vehicle)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (permissible judicial documents for proving prior-conviction facts)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (sentencing facts and prior convictions may be established by the court in certain contexts)