United States v. Lopez
890 F.3d 332
| 1st Cir. | 2018Background
- Luis López pleaded 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(a)(1)).
- The Probation Office's PSR identified five prior Massachusetts convictions as ACCA predicates, including three drug distribution convictions (2007, 2009 in District Court; 2013 in Superior Court), an assault with a dangerous weapon (2009), and a 2012 nighttime breaking-and-entering.
- The PSR and district court treated López as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (ACCA), triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence because he had at least three qualifying prior convictions.
- López objected that his 2007 and 2009 drug convictions prosecuted in Massachusetts District Court could not qualify as ACCA "serious drug offense[s]" because the district court’s maximum sentencing exposure was 2.5 years (not the 10+ years ACCA requires), and urged reconsideration of First Circuit precedent in light of Supreme Court decisions (Moncrieffe and Carachuri-Rosendo).
- The district court imposed the ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum; on appeal the First Circuit reviewed López's preserved challenge de novo and affirmed, concluding the district-court prosecutions still qualified as ACCA predicates under binding First Circuit precedent.
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 the district court could only sentence to 2.5 years, the convictions did not expose him to the 10+ year maximum required by ACCA; Moncrieffe/Carachuri-Rosendo require assessing the actual sentencing exposure. | Government/First Circuit: The statutory offense carried a 10-year maximum; under First Circuit precedent district-court convictions under M.G.L. ch.94C §§32/32A qualify as ACCA predicates. | Held: Affirmed — the convictions qualify as ACCA predicates under controlling First Circuit precedent. |
| Whether Moncrieffe and Carachuri-Rosendo require revisiting First Circuit precedent (law-of-the-circuit doctrine) | López: Those Supreme Court decisions constitute intervening authority that undermines Moore/Weekes/Hudson and require reevaluation. | Government: López failed to preserve new-authority argument and even on the merits First Circuit precedent remains controlling. | Held: Rejected — Moncrieffe and Carachuri-Rosendo do not undermine existing First Circuit decisions; exceptions to the law-of-the-circuit doctrine do not apply. |
| Whether other prior convictions (ADW, B&E) must be reached to sustain ACCA enhancement | López: Argued ADW and breaking-and-entering did not qualify as "violent felonies." | Government: Relied on drug predicates and other convictions; did not rely on B&E on appeal. | Held: Not reached — unnecessary because three qualifying drug predicates exist (including an uncontested 2013 conviction). |
| Preservation / Standard of Review for López's objection | Government: Argues inadequate specificity below (did not cite Moncrieffe/Carachuri-Rosendo) so plain-error review should apply. | López: He preserved the claim via a sentencing memorandum and oral objection; de novo review appropriate. | Held: López preserved the claim; Court reviewed de novo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (record ambiguity on whether state offense corresponded to federal felony precludes classification as aggravated felony)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (courts may not "ex post" enhance a state conviction based on facts not of record to reclassify the offense)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical approach for determining whether prior offenses qualify as predicate offenses)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (formulation of categorical approach for prior convictions)
- United States v. Hudson, 823 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2016) (district-court prosecutions under M.G.L. ch.94C §32A(a) qualify as ACCA serious drug offenses)
- United States v. Moore, 286 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2002) (Massachusetts district-court drug convictions can serve as ACCA predicates)
- United States v. Weekes, 611 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2010) (same)