United States v. Kareem Doctor
842 F.3d 306
4th Cir.2016Background
- Defendant Kareem Antwan Doctor pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) after police found a .380 pistol in his residence.
- At sentencing the PSR classified Doctor as an Armed Career Criminal under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), based on two prior South Carolina drug convictions and one prior South Carolina "strong arm" (common-law) robbery conviction.
- The district court applied the ACCA enhancement over Doctor’s objection and imposed the 15-year statutory minimum.
- On appeal Doctor challenged whether the South Carolina robbery conviction qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the ACCA’s force clause (the element requiring use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another).
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo, applied the categorical approach, and analyzed South Carolina robbery as defined by State v. Rosemond (robbery may be by "violence" or by "putting [the victim] in fear").
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether South Carolina strong-arm robbery qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the force clause (use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another) | Government: South Carolina robbery (by violence or intimidation) necessarily involves threatened or actual physical force and thus falls within the force clause | Doctor: Robbery-by-intimidation can involve nonphysical or minimal threats, threats not directed at a person, or negligent/reckless force; South Carolina law lacks an explicit mens rea for the force element and may allow de minimis force | The Fourth Circuit affirmed: South Carolina robbery (both violence and intimidation variants) necessarily involves threatened or actual physical force directed at a person, and there is no realistic probability South Carolina would prosecute negligent/accidental force — conviction qualifies as an ACCA violent felony |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defines "physical force" as "violent force" capable of causing physical pain or injury)
- Rosemond, 356 S.C. 426, 589 S.E.2d 757 (S.C. 2003) (South Carolina defines robbery as taking from the person or in the presence of another by violence or by putting such person in fear)
- McNeal v. United States, 818 F.3d 141 (4th Cir. 2016) (held intimidation in § 2113(a) bank robbery entails a threat of violent force)
- Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255 (2000) (bank robbery requires general intent as to the taking by force or intimidation)
- Gardner v. United States, 823 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2016) (describes categorical approach and analyzes whether state robbery meets force-clause threshold)
- Baxter v. United States, 642 F.3d 475 (4th Cir. 2011) (explains categorical approach methodology)