950 F.3d 289
5th Cir.2020Background
- Keith A. James pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); his PSR listed three prior Louisiana armed-robbery convictions (and other prior offenses).
- The PSR treated James as an armed-career criminal, producing an enhanced Guidelines range and triggering the ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum; James objected to treating the Louisiana armed-robbery convictions as "violent felonies."
- The district court overruled the objection and sentenced James to 188 months’ imprisonment; James appealed the legal determination under the ACCA.
- The central legal question: whether Louisiana armed robbery qualifies as a "violent felony" under the ACCA after Johnson v. United States (Johnson II), i.e., whether it satisfies the ACCA’s force clause or is an enumerated offense.
- The Fifth Circuit applied the categorical approach (examining the least-culpable conduct) and relied on its precedent in United States v. Brown and later decisions analyzing "intimidation" and implied threats of force.
- Holding: the court concluded Louisiana armed robbery satisfies the ACCA’s force clause (use/attempted/threatened use of physical force) and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisiana armed robbery is a "violent felony" under the ACCA | James: Brown relied (implicitly) on the now-invalid residual clause and LA robbery may criminalize mere intimidation or slight contact that is not "physical force" sufficient under ACCA | Gov: Brown properly relied on the ACCA force clause; LA robbery requires overcoming resistance or carries implied threats of physical force, so it fits the force clause | The court affirmed: Louisiana armed robbery qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA’s force clause |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 437 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2006) (held Louisiana simple robbery meets ACCA force-clause requirements)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck down ACCA residual clause as void for vagueness)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (held a Florida battery statute permitting slight touching did not satisfy ACCA’s "physical force" requirement)
- Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) (held robbery requiring force sufficient to overcome resistance satisfies ACCA force clause)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (explained categorical approach examining least-culpable conduct)
- United States v. Brewer, 848 F.3d 711 (5th Cir. 2017) (held intimidation in robbery context inherently tied to threatened use of force)
- United States v. Reyes-Contreras, 910 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2018) (analyzed "physical force" under Sentencing Guidelines; no valid distinction between direct and indirect force)
- United States v. Fuller, 453 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2006) (stating de novo review standard for preserved ACCA legal challenges)