51 F.4th 292
8th Cir.2022Background
- Maurice Owen pleaded guilty twice in Minnesota to third-degree sale of a narcotic (cocaine mixtures). The district court held those convictions do not qualify as ACCA "serious drug offense[s]," and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
- ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum for felons in possession with three prior violent-felony or serious-drug-offense convictions; whether a prior state conviction qualifies is a legal (categorical) inquiry comparing state statutory elements to the federal definition.
- Minnesota’s statutory definition of "cocaine" (Minn. Stat. §152.01, subd. 3a) expressly includes "the . . . isomers of cocaine" and any salts/derivatives "chemically equivalent or identical" with those substances.
- Federal controlled-substances law (21 U.S.C. schedule II) criminalizes only optical and geometric isomers of cocaine; Minnesota’s definition reaches additional isomers.
- Eighth Circuit precedent (United States v. Oliver) and analogous decisions hold that a state statute that covers cocaine isomers beyond the federal schedules is overbroad for ACCA purposes.
- The government’s realistic-probability argument (that non-federal isomers are only theoretical and so unlikely to be prosecuted) fails because Minnesota’s statutory language is unambiguously broader; thus Owen’s convictions do not count under ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Owen) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Owen’s Minnesota third-degree drug-sale convictions are ACCA "serious drug offense[s]" | Convictions do not qualify because Minnesota’s definition of cocaine sweeps more broadly than the federal schedules | The convictions should count because, in practice, Minnesota will not prosecute isomers outside the federal schedules (realistic-probability) | Held: Do not qualify; Minnesota statute is overbroad |
| Whether Minnesota’s statutory definition of "cocaine" includes isomers beyond those in the federal schedules | Minnesota’s definition explicitly covers "isomers of cocaine," thus broader | Federal law only lists optical and geometric isomers; other isomers exist only theoretically | Held: Minnesota covers additional isomers and is thus broader than the federal definition |
| Whether the realistic-probability test can narrow the statute to avoid overbreadth | Statute is unambiguous; no narrowing is permitted by realistic-probability | Real-world prosecutorial practice makes prosecution of non-federal isomers unlikely, so statute should not be treated as reaching them | Held: Test inapplicable here because the statute’s language is unambiguous and clearly broad |
| Whether a jury must decide if the two sales occurred on separate occasions for ACCA purposes | Owen argued a jury should decide the separate-occasions element | Government argued differing position (not reached) | Held: Court did not reach—decision unnecessary after resolving statute is overbroad |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Schneider, 905 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2018) (categorical inquiry compares statutory elements, not actual conduct)
- Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) (categorical approach applies to defining predicate offenses)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (distinguishes indivisible and divisible statutes for categorical analysis)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (modified categorical approach and use of Shepard documents)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limited class of documents for modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Vanoy, 957 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2020) (assessing whether state statute criminalizes broader conduct than federal definition)
- United States v. Oliver, 987 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2021) (Illinois statute overbroad for covering additional cocaine isomers)
- United States v. De La Torre, 940 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2019) (similar holding that state statute covering extra isomers is overbroad)
- United States v. Phifer, 909 F.3d 372 (11th Cir. 2018) (discussing definition and meaning of isomers in this context)
- United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) (refusing to rewrite state statute to conform to federal schedules)