United States v. Mack
4:08-cr-01252
D.S.C.Apr 12, 2021Background:
- Mack pled guilty to a federal drug conspiracy, was ultimately released from custody on January 11, 2019, after multiple sentence reductions.
- Probation reported Mack’s arrest on state Assault & Battery in the First Degree (A&B 1st), and classified the supervised-release violation as Grade A; Guidelines range was calculated at 46–57 months (Class A felony + CHC V).
- At the revocation hearing the Court credited evidence (videos, medical records, testimony) and found Mack brutally beat a 72‑year‑old victim, repeatedly kicking him in the face and causing serious, lasting injuries.
- Mack contested the grade after the Court found the conduct occurred, arguing the offense should be Grade B (Guidelines 18–24 months) rather than Grade A.
- The Court applied the three‑step process for grading revocation violations (factual finding of actual conduct; identify the state offense the conduct constitutes; determine whether that offense is a ‘‘crime of violence’’ under §4B1.2).
- The Court concluded Mack’s conduct fell under S.C. Code §16‑3‑600(C)(1)(b)(i) (attempt/offering to injure by means likely to produce death or great bodily injury), and that subsection is categorically a crime of violence under the Guidelines’ force clause; Mack’s objection was overruled and the Guidelines range remained 46–57 months.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade of supervised‑release violation | Government: Mack’s conduct constitutes A&B 1st (§16‑3‑600(C)(1)(b)(i)) and thus is a Grade A crime of violence | Mack: Violation should be Grade B; A&B 1st (or this conduct) does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence | Court: Overruled Mack; violation is Grade A and Guidelines range is 46–57 months |
| Whether §16‑3‑600(C)(1)(b)(i) is categorically a "crime of violence" under the force clause | Government: (b)(i)’s requirement that injury be likely to produce death/great bodily injury entails violent physical force meeting Johnson | Mack: (Implicit) statute could be overbroad or permit non‑forceful/reckless conduct; thus not categorical match | Court: (b)(i) requires specific intent and force sufficient to satisfy Johnson; categorically a crime of violence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defines "physical force" as violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisible statutes and the modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Simmons, 917 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2019) (categorical approach and application to revocation context)
- United States v. Salmons, 873 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2017) (minimum conduct must match the crime‑of‑violence definition)
- United States v. Burns‑Johnson, 864 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2017) (district courts must rely on state court interpretations when applying the categorical approach)
- United States v. Doctor, 958 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2020) (in revocation context, identify particular offense from actual conduct, then apply categorical approach)
- State v. McGowan, 845 S.E.2d 503 (S.C. Ct. App. 2020) (South Carolina Court of Appeals: §16‑3‑600(C)(1)(b)(i) requires specific intent to injure)