United States v. Moore, 203 F.Supp.3d 854

Moore pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and faced sentencing issues related to prior Ohio convictions.
PSI identified three prior Ohio felonies as potential ACCA predicates: aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, and robbery (all from April 2, 2009).
Government sought a 15-year ACCA mandatory minimum if all three priors qualified as "violent felonies."
Parties disputed (1) ACCA applicability, (2) the Guideline base offense level (§ 2K2.1(a)(2) v. (a)(4)), and (3) a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for use/possession in connection with another felony.
Court held at sentencing: only aggravated assault qualified as an ACCA predicate; aggravated robbery and robbery did not; ACCA enhancement denied, base offense level set at 20, and 4-point enhancement declined (no proven felony connection).

Issue	Government's Argument	Moore's Argument	Held
Whether Moore is an Armed Career Criminal under ACCA	All three prior Ohio convictions are "violent felonies," triggering 15‑year minimum	At most one conviction qualifies; ACCA does not apply	Only aggravated assault qualifies; aggravated robbery and robbery do not; ACCA not triggered
Whether aggravated robbery under Ohio law qualifies as ACCA "force" predicate	Statute's weapon display/brandish/use elements amount to threatened/violent force	Statute is ambiguous and contains strict‑liability "weapon" element, so it cannot satisfy ACCA's knowing/intent requirement	Aggravated robbery does not qualify (ambiguous "display" and strict liability for weapon element)
Whether robbery under Ohio law is a "violent felony"	Prior robbery qualifies as crime of violence	Robbery carries only recklessness mens rea and thus cannot satisfy ACCA "use of force" element	Robbery does not qualify (mens rea limited to recklessness)
Whether to apply 4‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for use/possession in connection with another felony	Moore used/possessed firearm in connection with an assault at arrest, so enhancement applies	Disputed facts; no conviction or factual finding proving a related felony; enhancement would require crediting unproven allegations	Enhancement not applied—court refused to resolve disputed factual issue without proof (no evidentiary hearing and no charge/conviction)

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (struck down ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
United States v. Anderson, 695 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2012) (held Ohio aggravated assault is a violent felony under ACCA force prong)
United States v. Perry, 703 F.3d 906 (6th Cir. 2013) (treated Ohio aggravated assault under residual clause)
United States v. Pawlak, 822 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2016) (Guidelines' residual clause is unconstitutionally vague post‑Johnson)
Jones v. United States, 689 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 2012) (offenses requiring only recklessness do not qualify under ACCA force prong)
United States v. McMurray, 653 F.3d 367 (6th Cir. 2011) (ACCA force prong requires more than reckless conduct)
Castleman v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014) (knowing or intentional application of force is a "use" of force)
Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (DUI statutes lacking required mental state do not qualify as crimes of violence)
United States v. Sanders, 470 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2006) (earlier version of Ohio aggravated robbery treated under residual clause)