United States v. Joshua Reshi Dudley, 5f4th1249

Background

Dudley pleaded guilty in federal court to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); his presentence report listed three prior Alabama second-degree assault convictions that could trigger ACCA’s 15‑year mandatory minimum.
The Alabama indictments did not state offense dates, but the state-court plea colloquy contained the prosecutor’s factual proffer identifying three distinct dates in 2011 for the assaults.
At the Alabama plea hearing Dudley pleaded guilty to each count and did not object to the prosecutor’s factual proffer, but he was never asked to expressly confirm the dates recited by the prosecutor.
At federal sentencing Dudley objected to the ACCA enhancement, arguing Shepard barred reliance on unconfirmed plea‑colloquy facts and that the dates were non‑elemental; the district court found implicit confirmation and applied ACCA, imposing 215 months.
On appeal Dudley also raised a Rehaif challenge (first raised on appeal), arguing his plea was not knowing because the indictment/colloquy omitted the knowledge‑of‑status element; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed that claim for plain error.
The Eleventh Circuit majority affirmed: it held the district court permissibly relied on the state prosecutor’s factual proffer because Dudley implicitly confirmed it, and rejected Dudley’s Rehaif-based plain‑error challenge; Judge Newsom concurred in part and dissented as to the ACCA holding.

Issues

Issue	Dudley’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether the district court could rely on the prosecutor’s factual proffer in the state plea colloquy to show the prior convictions were "committed on occasions different from one another" under the ACCA	The plea colloquy was not a Shepard‑approved source because Dudley never expressly confirmed the prosecutor’s recited dates; dates are non‑elemental and cannot be used to enhance sentence	The plea colloquy is a Shepard‑approved document; Dudley implicitly assented (no objection, pleaded guilty after proffer), so the district court could rely on the dates to satisfy the different‑occasions requirement	Affirmed: court may rely on the proffer when the defendant implicitly (totality of circumstances) confirmed the factual basis; non‑elemental facts in Shepard‑approved records may be considered for the different‑occasions inquiry
Whether Rehaif requires vacatur of Dudley’s guilty plea because indictment and plea omitted the knowledge‑of‑status element	Rehaif means the government must have alleged/proved Dudley knew his felon status; omission renders plea involuntary/defective	Rehaif error is non‑jurisdictional here; under plain‑error review Dudley cannot show a reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty or that his substantial rights were affected	Rejected on plain‑error review: Dudley did not show he would have pleaded differently and overwhelming record evidence would have shown knowledge of felon status
Whether Shepard/Sneed require express (not implicit) confirmation of a plea’s factual basis before a sentencing court may rely on it	Shepard requires the defendant to ‘‘confirm’’ factual basis; silence is insufficient — express confirmation should be required to qualify as Shepard‑approved	Shepard does not demand express words; totality of circumstances can show implicit confirmation; express‑only rule would produce arbitrary results across varying state plea practices	Held (majority): implicit confirmation can satisfy Shepard; Dissent (Newsom) would require express confirmation and raised Sixth Amendment concerns about judicial factfinding for ACCA different‑occasions determinations

Key Cases Cited

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits admissible plea‑record sources for determining the nature of a prior conviction and requires the factual basis be reflected in reliable judicial records)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (adopts the categorical approach and introduces the modified categorical approach narrow exception)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (clarifies limits of the modified categorical approach; prohibits using that approach when statute is indivisible)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes elements from means and limits when courts may look beyond statutory text)
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holds the government must prove the defendant knew both possession and status elements of § 922(g))
Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (recognizes a narrow exception permitting judicial finding of the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing enhancement)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (rules that, except for the fact of a prior conviction, any fact increasing the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (extends Apprendi to facts that increase mandatory minimums but preserves Almendarez‑Torres)
United States v. Sneed, 600 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (applies Shepard‑approved‑sources limitation to ACCA different‑occasions inquiry)
United States v. Carter, 969 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2020) (addresses application of Shepard and different‑occasions analysis at sentencing)
United States v. Bates, 960 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (holds Rehaif‑type indictment defects non‑jurisdictional and evaluates plain‑error standard for plea challenges)
United States v. Taylor, 659 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2011) (upholds reliance on an unobjected‑to prosecutor proffer and treats silence/plea as an admission for sentencing purposes)