830 F.3d 760
8th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant John Prickett, Jr. shot his wife multiple times in Buffalo River National Park; she survived.
- Prickett pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit murder (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1)) (Count I) and to using a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)) (Count II).
- Prickett moved to dismiss Count II, arguing § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States.
- The district court denied the motion, finding the assault-with-intent-to-murder conviction qualified as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(B).
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality of § 924(c)(3)(B) de novo and considered whether Johnson’s invalidation of the ACCA residual clause extends to § 924(c)(3)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson | Prickett: Johnson invalidates § 924(c)(3)(B) because it similarly uses a ‘‘substantial risk’’ residual standard | Government: § 924(c)(3)(B) differs from ACCA residual clause because it is applied to real-world conduct, not an imagined "ordinary case" | Court: § 924(c)(3)(B) is constitutional as applied; district court correctly denied dismissal of Count II |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA’s residual clause for vagueness)
- United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for constitutionality of § 924 provisions)