United States v. Kenneth Daniels
915 F.3d 148
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Defendant Kenneth Daniels pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) and reserved the right to contest ACCA enhancement.
- Daniels had at least three prior Pennsylvania convictions under 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 780-113(a)(30) for possession with intent to deliver cocaine.
- Application of the ACCA three-strikes provision would trigger a 15-year mandatory minimum; without it his guideline range would have been substantially lower.
- Daniels argued § 780-113(a)(30) is overbroad because ACCA’s “serious drug offense” definition does not encompass attempts, and that Pennsylvania’s attempt/accomplice law is broader than federal law (e.g., criminalizing mere offers, preparation, or buyer solicitation).
- The Third Circuit, relying on its precedents and other circuits, considered (1) whether § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) includes inchoate attempts and (2) whether Pennsylvania law’s attempt/accomplice doctrines are coextensive with federal law.
- The court affirmed the sentence, holding ACCA includes attempts and Pennsylvania attempt/accomplice law aligns with federal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Daniels) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)’s category of "serious drug offense" includes attempts to manufacture/distribute/possess with intent | Daniels: "Involving" should not be read to include inchoate attempts; Congress omitted attempts elsewhere so they are excluded here | Gov: "Involving" is broad; federal law and courts treat attempts as within the class of drug offenses; ACCA should include attempts | Held: ACCA’s definition encompasses attempts as defined under federal law |
| Whether Pennsylvania attempt and accomplice liability sweep more broadly than federal equivalents (i.e., criminalize mere offers, preparation, buyer solicitation) | Daniels: PA statute and decisions permit convictions for mere offers, preparation, and buyer solicitation, making the state law broader than federal law | Gov: PA definitions of delivery, attempt, and accomplice mirror federal law and the Model Penal Code; PA does not punish mere offers under § 780-113(a)(30) | Held: Pennsylvania’s attempt and accomplice doctrines are coextensive with federal law; alleged overbreadth (offers, mere preparation, buyer solicitation) not shown for § 780-113(a)(30) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gibbs, 656 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2011) (ACCA "involving" language construed broadly; state offenses related to drug distribution can qualify)
- United States v. Glass, 904 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2018) (Pennsylvania delivery/attempt definitions and career-offender analysis; refused to treat § 780-113(a)(30) as sweeping in mere offers)
- Martinez v. Attorney General, 906 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2018) (Model Penal Code–based attempt analysis; state attempt law tracked federal approach for inchoate offenses)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (limiting modified categorical approach; relied upon by Daniels but distinguished by the court)
- United States v. McKenney, 450 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2006) (construed "involving" broadly to include conspiracies/ inchoate offenses)
- United States v. Alexander, 331 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (supports broad reading of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) to include offenses related to distribution)