United States v. Keith
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9911
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Keith pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(e).
- The district court sentenced Keith under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) as an armed career criminal to 180 months’ imprisonment.
- Keith admitted three prior felonies: domestic assault in the second degree and two drug offenses (sale and possession with intent to distribute) in September 1997.
- The district court counted these three convictions as ACCA predicate offenses.
- Keith appeals the predicate-offense determinations, arguing the court erred in counting them as separate predicates under § 924(e).
- The court reviews de novo whether the prior offenses qualify as ACCA predicates and affirms the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether domestic assault is a violent felony under ACCA. | Keith argues it is not a predicate due to probation. | Keith contends probation negates predicate status. | Keith's conviction qualifies as a violent felony. |
| Whether the two September 1997 drug offenses are separate predicates. | Keith claims they are one predicate offense. | Keith concedes separate charging documents may support separate predicates. | The two drug convictions are separate predicates. |
| Whether Shepard-based limits on evidence apply to the drug offenses. | Keith relies on Shepard to restrict reliance on evidence outside charging document. | District court had ample basis within plea and PSR; no improper external evidence used. | No error; facts from plea and PSR used appropriately. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 574 F.3d 546 (8th Cir. 2009) (domestic-assault convictions can be ACCA predicates)
- United States v. Clinkscale, 559 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2009) (focus is on potential imprisonment language under state law)
- United States v. Shepard, 125 S. Ct. 1254 (U.S. 2005) (courts may not look to police reports to recharacterize burglary for ACCA)
- United States v. Van, 543 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2008) (separate drug transactions on separate days can be separate predicates)
- United States v. Davis, 583 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2009) (PSR facts may be accepted as true for sentencing absent objection)
- United States v. Boaz, 558 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of ACCA predicate determinations)