United States v. Kerry Walker
599 F. App'x 582
6th Cir.2015Background
- In 2012 Kerry Walker was arrested with ammunition and two empty gun cases and pleaded guilty to federal firearms offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- Walker had a prior criminal record including two Kentucky convictions for second-degree burglary and one 1984 conviction for third-degree burglary (Ky. Rev. Stat. § 511.040), among other offenses.
- The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), finding Walker had three prior "violent felony" convictions and sentenced him to 180 months' imprisonment.
- The central legal question on appeal was whether Kentucky third-degree burglary qualifies as an ACCA "burglary" (an enumerated violent felony).
- The court examined whether the Kentucky statute is divisible and whether the charging documents showed Walker was convicted under the dwelling/structure alternative that matches the ACCA generic burglary.
- Walker raised additional constitutional challenges (jury-vs-judge factfinding, notice, and vagueness of the residual clause), which the court addressed but found unnecessary to decide in full because the enumerated-offense basis sufficed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kentucky third-degree burglary is an ACCA "burglary" | Walker: statute overbroad (includes vehicles/watercraft); thus not a categorical match | Government: statute is divisible; charging documents show dwelling/structure alternative matching generic burglary | Held: Yes; conviction charged and pleaded under "dwelling" alternative, so counts as burglary under ACCA |
| Divisibility of Ky. Rev. Stat. § 511.040 | Walker: statute is indivisible so categorical approach fails | Government: statute contains alternative elements (definition of "building") so divisible under Descamps | Held: Statute is divisible; court may consult charging/record documents |
| Need for jury finding of prior-fact elements for ACCA sentence | Walker: judge-made factual findings violate Sixth Amendment | Government: Almendarez-Torres controls | Held: Court follows Almendarez-Torres; challenge rejected (issue for Supreme Court to revisit) |
| Challenge to ACCA residual clause vagueness | Walker: residual clause void for vagueness | Government: not necessary because enumerated burglary convictions suffice | Held: Court need not decide vagueness; three enumerated offenses support sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (defines generic burglary for ACCA purposes)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (approach to divisible statutes and use of Shepard documents)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (prior-conviction sentencing facts may be found by judge)
- United States v. Cooper, 739 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. discussion of Almendarez-Torres and ACCA procedures)
- United States v. Ball, 771 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. holding on notice regarding ACCA applicability)
- United States v. Mauldin, 109 F.3d 1159 (6th Cir. precedent on ACCA notice and related arguments)