United States v. Mercedes Wilson, 978 F.3d 990

Mercedes Wilson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) after police found a loaded handgun and drugs where he fled a traffic stop.
The government sought a 15-year ACCA mandatory-minimum enhancement based on three prior Ohio aggravated-robbery convictions (two under O.R.C. § 2911.01(A)(1) and one under § 2911.01(A)(3)).
The legal dispute centered on whether (A)(3) aggravated robbery—which criminalizes inflicting or attempting to inflict "serious physical harm" while attempting or committing a listed "theft offense"—qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony," given Ohio’s definition of "serious physical harm" includes severe mental illness.
The district court, relying on this court’s en banc decision in Burris, concluded (A)(3) was not a violent felony and sentenced Wilson to 79 months; the government appealed.
The Sixth Circuit held Burris did not automatically control here, concluded O.R.C. § 2911.01(A) is "twice divisible" (by the three subsections and by the enumerated predicate theft offenses), and remanded for the district court to apply the modified categorical approach to identify which theft offense supported Wilson’s (A)(3) conviction.
The court vacated Wilson’s sentence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with applying the modified categorical approach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether O.R.C. § 2911.01(A)(3) aggravated robbery is a "violent felony" under the ACCA elements clause	Government: (A)(3) qualifies because it requires inflicting/attempting serious physical harm during a theft and typically implicates physical force	Wilson: Because "serious physical harm" includes severe mental illness, (A)(3) can be satisfied without physical force; Burris shows such statutes are overbroad	Court: Burris did not resolve (A)(3); court declined to decide the ultimate predicate question and remanded for the district court to identify the specific underlying theft offense and apply the modified categorical approach (sentence vacated)
Whether O.R.C. § 2911.01(A) is divisible as to the enumerated predicate theft offenses (i.e., "twice divisible")	Government: (argued or conceded in briefing) statute is not twice divisible	Wilson: similarly took the position statute is not twice divisible (and urged Burris breadth)	Court: Statute is twice divisible—the subsection used and the specific underlying theft offense are elements—so the modified categorical approach applies; remand required

United States v. Burris, 912 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (analyzed Ohio "serious physical harm" in assault statutes and limits when such statutes qualify as ACCA predicates)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisibility and modified categorical approach framework)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical approach limits inquiry to statutory elements)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) ("realistic probability" standard for categorical overbreadth)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (ACCA "physical force" definition guidance)
United States v. Denson, 728 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2013) (analyzing divisibility where statute included many enumerated predicate offenses)
Fullum v. United States, [citation="756 F. App'x 568"] (6th Cir. 2018) (panel decision concluding (A)(3) qualified as violent felony; court declined to adopt here)