United States v. Mayer
162 F. Supp. 3d 1080
D. Or.2016Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under the ACCA to the 15-year mandatory minimum based on three predicate offenses: two serious drug convictions and an Oregon first-degree burglary (dwelling) conviction.
- At sentencing the court relied on the ACCA residual clause to treat the burglary as a violent felony; Ninth Circuit precedent (Grisel/Mayer/Wenner) had previously held Oregon burglary statutes overbroad for a categorical match but allowed residual-clause treatment.
- After Johnson (invalidating the ACCA residual clause) the defendant moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his ACCA-enhanced sentence, arguing the Oregon first-degree dwelling burglary no longer qualifies as an ACCA predicate.
- The government argued the burglary conviction still qualified (via Taylor/modified categorical approach or otherwise); the court held oral argument and reviewed Descamps and subsequent Ninth Circuit decisions constraining the modified categorical approach.
- Applying binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent (particularly Descamps and Rendon), the court concluded Oregon’s statute is indivisible as to its broader definitions of “building,” precluding the modified categorical approach; thus the burglary conviction cannot serve as an ACCA predicate.
- The court granted the § 2255 motion, vacated the 180-month sentence, determined the defendant had already served beyond the statutory maximum without ACCA, and ordered immediate release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon first-degree burglary (dwelling) qualifies as ACCA "burglary" | Govt: statute can be treated as generic burglary under Taylor or via modified categorical approach | Defendant: Ninth Circuit precedent (Grisel/Mayer) and Descamps/Rendon foreclose a categorical or modified-categorical match | Court: Not a categorical match; modified categorical approach unavailable because statute is indivisible under Descamps/Rendon; burglary not an ACCA predicate |
| Whether the modified categorical approach may be used when a statutory alternative matches generic burglary but incorporated definitions of an element are overbroad | Govt: Descamps does not bar looking to Shepard documents when a statutory alternative (dwelling/building) can match generic burglary | Defendant: Definitions of "building" are alternative means, not elements, so Descamps/Rendon bar modified-categorical inquiry | Court: Bound by Descamps/Rendon; must treat Oregon’s broader definitions as alternative means (indivisible), so modified categorical approach cannot be used |
| Whether Descamps’ divisibility requirement is consistent with Taylor/Shepard and should control | Defendant: relies on post-Descamps Ninth Circuit authority interpreting divisibility strictly | Govt: argues Taylor/Shepard allow examining plea/charge to identify a generic alternative regardless of state-law element/means distinction | Court: Expresses strong disagreement with the divisibility doctrine but finds Descamps/Rendon binding and applies them |
| Remedy once ACCA predicate fails | Defendant: sentence must be vacated and defendant released if remaining statutory maximum already served | Govt: opposed to relief | Held: §2255 relief granted, ACCA enhancement vacated, sentence corrected and defendant released because he had served more than non-ACCA maximum |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defines ACCA "generic burglary" and approves categorical/modified-categorical analysis)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits use of modified categorical approach to "divisible" statutes)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidates ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (restricts documents sentencing courts may consult under modified categorical approach)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (interprets burglary risk rationale under the residual clause)
- Grisel v. United States, 488 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2007) (holds Oregon burglary statutes overbroad relative to generic burglary)
- Mayer v. United States, 560 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (applies Grisel to Oregon first-degree burglary)
- Rendon v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014) (clarifies divisibility: distinguishes alternative elements from alternative means)