United States v. Kenta Cook
686 F. App'x 662
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kenta Cook pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and received a 120-month sentence.
- The government appealed, arguing the district court erred by not applying the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which would impose a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- The ACCA applies when a § 922(g) defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on different occasions.
- Cook has a prior Georgia felony obstruction conviction under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(b), which criminalizes resisting/obstructing an officer by "offering or doing violence to the person of such officer."
- The Eleventh Circuit had previously held that Georgia felony obstruction categorically satisfies the ACCA elements clause in United States v. Brown.
- The panel reviewed whether Cook’s obstruction conviction qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA and whether the district court properly applied the categorical/modified categorical approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cook’s Georgia felony obstruction conviction qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the elements clause | The government: obstruction qualifies categorically as a violent felony because its element of "offering or doing violence" satisfies the elements clause | Cook: district court found it did not qualify; he also raised Sixth Amendment concerns about categorical approach | The Eleventh Circuit held the obstruction conviction categorically qualifies as an ACCA violent felony (following Brown) |
| Whether the district court could use the modified categorical approach / consider case-specific facts | The government: no; if the statute categorically qualifies, courts must use categorical approach only | Cook: district court improperly used modified categorical approach and considered conviction facts | The court held the district court erred by applying the modified categorical approach and considering surrounding circumstances |
| Whether Johnson v. United States invalidates treating obstruction as an ACCA predicate | The government: Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause does not affect the elements clause or this predicate | Cook: relied on Johnson to argue ACCA classification is affected | The court held Johnson is limited to the residual clause and does not disturb elements-clause predicates like obstruction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hill, 799 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015) (standard of review and ACCA analysis principles)
- United States v. Braun, 801 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing ACCA clauses and methodology)
- United States v. Wilkerson, 286 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2002) (elements clause qualification for violent felony)
- United States v. Brown, 805 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2015) (Georgia felony obstruction categorically meets ACCA elements clause)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical vs. modified categorical approach limits)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (definition of "physical force" for elements clause)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (prior convictions exception to jury-trial/factfinding requirements)
- United States v. Vega–Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008) (prior precedent rule binding on panels)
- United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court cannot impose sentence below statutory minimum absent exceptions)
Verdict: The panel vacated Cook’s 120-month sentence and remanded for resentencing under the ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimum because his Georgia felony obstruction conviction is an ACCA violent felony and the district court erred in its analysis.