United States v. Michael Ramsey
498 F. App'x 653
8th Cir.2013Background
- Ramsey pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm.
- The district court sentenced Ramsey to 188 months after determining he was an armed career criminal under ACCA.
- Ramsey challenges the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague under ACCA § 924(e)(2)(B).
- Ramsey contends two robbery/armed criminal action convictions were not part of a continuous course of conduct, affecting ACCA predicate count.
- Ramsey argues the ACCA predicate convictions must be charged to a jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court applies de novo review and rejects each argument based on controlling Supreme Court and circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. | Ramsey argues residual clause is inherently vague. | Ramsey relies on Scalia's dissent and argues lack of fair notice. | Residual clause not unconstitutionally vague. |
| Whether prior felonies were committed on separate occasions for ACCA purposes. | Ramsey claims separate occasions reduce ACCA predicates. | Court may decide separate occasions as a legal question for sentencing. | Sentencing court may determine conduct timing; no reversal on this basis. |
| Whether the district court erred by relying on an uncharged predicate for ACCA sentencing. | Argues Apprendi requires jury finding for ACCA predicates. | Recidivism is a penalty provision, not a requisite jury finding. | Recidivism basis may be used without jury finding; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Derby v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2858 (2011) (referred to regarding residual clause vagueness arguments)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (residual clause provides guidance; fair notice not lacking)
- United States v. James, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (residual provision not unconstitutionally vague)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be charged and proved)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (recidivism is a sentencing factor, not an element requiring charging)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (upholds sentence based on judicial factfinding within Guidelines framework)
- United States v. Sohn, 567 F.3d 392 (9th Cir. 2009) (recidivism considerations continue to be treated as penalties)