United States v. Lewis Pate
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10615
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- On a Tuesday afternoon in St. Paul, MN, an exchange of gunfire occurred; police tracked a suspect to a residence where officers found a .38 revolver and a black hoodie.
- Pate was arrested, made recorded admissions that the gun was his, and made jail calls asking others to retrieve his "money" while acknowledging he might be charged with a firearm.
- A jury convicted Pate of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
- The government sought ACCA enhancement based in part on two prior Minnesota convictions for fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle (Minn. Stat. § 609.487, subd. 3).
- The district court found Pate an armed career criminal, applied the ACCA mandatory minimum, but granted a downward variance to 200 months. Pate appealed both conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Pate's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 922(g) conviction | Recorded admissions and jail calls do not specifically link Pate to the recovered revolver | Admissions and calls, plus recovery of gun at residence, permit reasonable inference of knowing possession | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to sustain jury verdict |
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.487, subd. 3 qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" under the residual clause | Descamps/Johnson analysis makes statute non-qualifying because statute is indivisible or too broad | Under Descamps/Tucker and precedent (Sykes, Bartel), ordinary motor-vehicle flight presents serious potential risk of injury and qualifies under residual clause | Affirmed — statute is indivisible as to means of flight and, in the ordinary case, presents serious risk; qualifies as a violent felony |
| Ex post facto challenge to using prior fleeing convictions as ACCA predicates | Treating prior convictions as ACCA predicates violates ex post facto protections because Tyler suggested otherwise at time of those convictions | Judicial decisions (Sykes/Bartel) are not ex post facto violations; prior case law and circuit split made outcome not "unexpected and indefensible" | Rejected — Ex Post Facto Clause not implicated by subsequent judicial interpretation |
| Vagueness challenge to ACCA residual clause | Residual clause is void for vagueness (adopts dissenting view in Sykes) | Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedent uphold residual clause | Rejected — Eighth Circuit precedent (Childs) controls; not void for vagueness |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (clarified modified categorical approach applies only to divisible statutes)
- Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1 (vehicular flight presents inherent risk; supports residual-clause inclusion)
- United States v. Bartel, 698 F.3d 658 (8th Cir.) (held Minn. Stat. § 609.487, subd. 3 is ACCA predicate)
- United States v. Tucker, 740 F.3d 1177 (8th Cir. en banc) (applied Descamps framework to residual clause analysis)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (defined "serious potential risk of physical injury" standard)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach: focus on statutory elements, not underlying facts)
- United States v. Childs, 403 F.3d 970 (8th Cir.) (rejected vagueness challenge to § 924(e))