United States v. Lee
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23129
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Lee pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and to possessing stolen firearms; district court sentenced him to life in prison.
- The district court categorized Lee as an armed career criminal under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a) based on three prior violent-felony convictions under the ACCA.
- The district court identified burglary, escape, and injury to a child as qualifying violent felonies; Lee conceded burglary but argued escape was not violent and injuries should count as a single offense.
- The court reviewed the ACCA predicate determination de novo and held Lee’s escape under Illinois law qualifies as a violent felony; the two injury-to-a-child convictions counted separately.
- With three qualifying predicates satisfied, Lee was an armed career criminal and thus subject to enhanced penalties, including life imprisonment.
- The district court then considered multiple guideline enhancements (firearms, sale, robbery planning) yielding a life sentence; Lee challenged these enhancements and related due-process claims, which the court rejected, affirming the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACCA predicate validity | Lee argues escape is not a violent felony and injuries count as one offense. | Lee contends only burglary suffices and multiple injuries should not be double-counted. | Escape and injuries qualify; Lee is an armed career criminal. |
| Due process burden for sentencing enhancements | Enhancements require clear and convincing evidence due to their impact on the advisory range. | Preponderance of the evidence is sufficient for sentencing enhancements. | Preponderance standard applies; due process not violated. |
| Sixth Amendment jury trial right on enhancements | Facts supporting enhancements mirror state charges not tried by a jury. | No Sixth Amendment violation because sentencing facts may be found by the court. | No Sixth Amendment violation; sentencing facts may be judicially found. |
| Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment | Life sentence for offenses with typical ten-year ranges is disproportionate. | Long sentence justified by ACCA recidivism and § 3553(a) factors. | Not grossly disproportionate; within statutory and guideline ranges. |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (defining violent felony under ACCA)
- Gordon, 557 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of ACCA predicate determinations)
- Parks, 620 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2010) (escape from custody as violent felony)
- Pearson, 553 F.3d 1183 (8th Cir. 2009) (consideration of documents with facially ambiguous statutes)
- Townley, 929 F.2d 365 (8th Cir. 1991) (exceptional due-process standard for sentencing facts (dicta))
- United States v. Villareal-Amarillas, 562 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2009) (due-process standard for sentencing facts; preponderance applies)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (guidepost for sentencing guidelines and Sixth Amendment considerations)
- United States v. E.R.B., 86 F.3d 129 (8th Cir. 1996) (credibility and standard of review for factual findings)
- United States v. Parks, 620 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2010) (escape from custody and violent-conduct considerations)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1980) (recidivism and proportionality principles in sentencing)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (U.S. 2003) (narrow proportionality principle for noncapital sentences)
- Paton, 535 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2008) (factors for considering proportionality and recidivism)