United States v. John Foster
674 F.3d 391
4th Cir.2012Background
- Foster was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- He previously had threeVirginia break-ins under Va. Code § 18.2-90 (1992, amended 2004) to support ACCA predicate arguments.
- Question presented: do Foster’s Virginia convictions for Corner Market and Sunrise-Sunset Restaurant constitute generic burglary for ACCA purposes.
- Virginia statute can punish diversified acts including both building-type burglary and non-building entries such as a ship, vessel, or railroad car; this creates ambiguity under ACCA's generic burglary concept.
- Panel majority held the two offenses qualify as generic burglary under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990).
- Dissent argued Shepard v. United States requires “Shepard-approved” documents to prove the predicate and that names alone are insufficient; relied on non-authoritative sources and common sense
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Corner Market and Sunrise-Sunset Restaurant qualify as generic burglary under ACCA? | Foster contends they do not necessarily involve buildings. | Panel majority held they qualify under generic burglary via charging documents. | Yes; they qualify as ACCA predicates. |
| May a court rely on Shepard-approved documents to prove a predicate without extrinsic evidence? | Dissent argues Shepard requires conclusive records and forbids reliance on common sense. | Panel majority maintained Shepard-approved documents suffice and no improper fact-finding occurred. | Shepard-approved documents suffice; no error in reliance. |
| What is the proper standard of review for Shepard-approved document determinations? | Dissent asserts clear-error review should govern factual determinations. | Panel majority treated such determinations as de novo legal questions. | Standard upheld as applied; governance aligns with Shepard-based approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 659 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2011) (illustrates common-sense approach in ACCA analyses)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (S. Ct. 2005) (limits ACCA inquiry to Shepard-approved documents)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010) (interprets ACCA terms by ordinary meaning)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (S. Ct. 2008) (ACCA questions resolved by typical conduct of the crimes)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (S. Ct. 2007) (ACCA does not require metaphysical certainty)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (upholds ACCA application via commonsense reasoning)
- United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2005) (deference for district court legal determinations; mixed standard of review)