United States v. Lorenzo Clegg
714 F. App'x 227
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Lorenzo Jamal Clegg pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and received a 120-month sentence.
- The district court applied an enhanced base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) because Clegg committed the offense after a prior felony conviction for crimes of violence (consolidated North Carolina convictions for common law robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon).
- Clegg challenged the enhancement on appeal, arguing his prior convictions did not categorically qualify as crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), invoking Johnson and related decisions.
- The Fourth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles; after Beckles (which rejected vagueness challenges to the Guidelines), Clegg pressed that the Guidelines’ residual clause and commentary still could not classify his offenses as crimes of violence.
- The Government argued the convictions qualified under the Guidelines’ residual clause; the Fourth Circuit concluded the prior North Carolina convictions do qualify under the residual clause and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clegg’s prior NC robbery convictions are "crimes of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) for § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) enhancement | Clegg: Johnson reasoning renders residual clause void; his convictions do not categorically qualify under any clause | Government: Beckles controls; apply § 4B1.2(a) (including residual clause) and convictions qualify | Court: Beckles forecloses Johnson-based attack on Guidelines; convictions qualify under the residual clause; enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenge under Due Process; § 4B1.2 residual clause not void for vagueness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Mack, 855 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2017) (applied § 4B1.2(a) including residual clause post-Beckles)
- United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2017) (affirming application of Guidelines residual clause post-Beckles)