890 F.3d 332
1st Cir.2018Background
- Luis López pled guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and possession with intent to distribute heroin (21 U.S.C. § 841).
- The PSR identified five prior Massachusetts convictions as ACCA predicates: drug distribution (2007), assault with a dangerous weapon (2009), possession with intent to distribute a Class A drug (2009), nighttime breaking-and-entering (2012), and unlawful distribution of cocaine (2013).
- The Probation Office concluded López had at least three qualifying "serious drug offense[s]" or "violent felon[ies]" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
- López challenged mainly whether his 2007 and 2009 district-court drug convictions qualified as ACCA "serious drug offense[s]," because Massachusetts district courts can only impose up to 2.5 years, while the statute authorizes up to 10 years if prosecuted in superior court.
- The district court sentenced López to the 180-month ACCA mandatory minimum; on appeal the First Circuit affirmed based on circuit precedent holding that convictions under the statutes (which authorize up to 10 years) qualify as ACCA predicates even if prosecuted in district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether López's 2007 and 2009 Massachusetts district-court drug convictions qualify as ACCA "serious drug offense[s]" | López: Because he was prosecuted in district court, the actual maximum punishable term was 2.5 years, so the convictions cannot satisfy ACCA's 10+ year statutory maximum requirement | Government: The relevant inquiry is the statutory maximum punishment under the state statute (up to 10 years), so the convictions qualify as ACCA predicates | Court: Affirmed; convictions qualify because the statutes under which he was convicted authorize up to 10 years, and First Circuit precedent controls |
| Whether Moncrieffe/Carachuri-Rosendo require revisiting First Circuit precedent (Hudson/Weekes/Moore) | López: Those Supreme Court decisions constrain using hypothetical or alternative prosecutorial paths; they require looking to the actual punishment possibility, so prior First Circuit decisions should be revisited | Government: First Circuit precedent governs; López forfeited or did not preserve any new argument; Moncrieffe/Carachuri-Rosendo do not alter circuit law here | Court: Rejected López; Moncrieffe and Carachuri-Rosendo do not undermine or postdate the controlling First Circuit precedents, so the law-of-the-circuit doctrine requires adherence to prior panels |
| Whether the court should apply plain-error review because López failed to cite specific Supreme Court cases below | López: Preserved argument sufficiently via sentencing memorandum and objection to PSR | Government: López failed to preserve Moncrieffe/Carachuri-Rosendo argument, so plain-error review applies | Court: López preserved his challenge adequately; court reviews de novo |
| Whether López has at least three qualifying ACCA predicates overall | López: Challenges multiple predicates but concedes one (2013 cocaine distribution) is qualifying; contests others | Government: At least three convictions qualify (including the disputed 2007 and 2009 ones) | Court: Because the 2007 and 2009 drug convictions qualify and an uncontested 2013 conviction exists, López meets ACCA's three-prior threshold; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (categorical approach controls ACCA predicate analysis)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (Foundational categorical approach for prior-conviction enhancements)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (limits reliance on hypothetical prosecutorial facts when classifying prior convictions under immigration law)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (rejects ex post enhancement of state convictions based on facts not part of the conviction record)
- United States v. Hudson, 823 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.) (held M.G.L. ch. 94C convictions prosecuted in district court can qualify as ACCA serious drug offenses)
- United States v. Weekes, 611 F.3d 68 (1st Cir.) (same holding regarding Massachusetts district-court drug convictions)
- United States v. Moore, 286 F.3d 47 (1st Cir.) (same principle applied earlier)
- United States v. Rodríguez, 527 F.3d 221 (1st Cir.) (law-of-the-circuit doctrine and refusal to apply Carachuri-Rosendo to revisit prior panels)
- United States v. Pires, 642 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (explaining exceptions to law-of-the-circuit doctrine)
- United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.) (en banc) (out-of-circuit decision limiting use of prior state convictions when record lacks facts to support felony characterization)
- United States v. Brooks, 751 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir.) (out-of-circuit decision addressing improper post hoc enhancement of prior convictions)
- United States v. Haltiwanger, 637 F.3d 881 (8th Cir.) (out-of-circuit decision on limits to using prior convictions for enhancements)