United States v. Nathan E. Gundy
842 F.3d 1156
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Nathan E. Gundy convicted by jury (Dec. 2013) of being a felon in possession of firearms, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
- PSI found Gundy an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on seven prior Georgia burglary convictions; district court adopted that view and applied the § 924(e) enhancement.
- Gundy objected, arguing only burglaries of residences qualify as ACCA "burglary" and thus he lacked three predicate violent felonies; he also contested certain Guidelines enhancements (some sustained, some overruled).
- Georgia statute in force at relevant times, O.C.G.A. § 16-7-1(a) (pre-2012), lists alternative locations (dwelling house; building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft designed as a dwelling; other building/aircraft/room) in disjunctive.
- Eleventh Circuit majority concluded the Georgia burglary statute is divisible as to locational alternatives; using the modified categorical approach, the indictments showed Gundy’s prior convictions were for burglary of dwellings or buildings (generic burglary) and therefore qualified as ACCA predicates.
- Judge Pryor dissented, arguing Georgia law treats dwelling/building as a single location element (indivisible statute); the indictments are ambiguous and insufficient under Mathis, so ACCA enhancement should not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Gundy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gundy’s prior Georgia burglaries qualify as ACCA "violent felonies" (enumerated-crimes clause) | Georgia burglary statute is divisible by locational alternatives; indictments identify dwelling/building counts that match generic burglary, so convictions are ACCA predicates | Only burglary of a residence or structure (generic burglary) qualifies; Georgia statute is broader and indivisible, so convictions do not necessarily match generic burglary | Held: statute is divisible; Shepard documents show Gundy’s convictions were for burglary of dwellings/buildings → predicates under ACCA; enhancement proper. |
| Proper method to test Georgia burglary under ACCA | Use Mathis framework: determine divisibility; if divisible, apply modified categorical approach to Shepard documents | Georgia law and jury/instruction practice treat "building or dwelling" as one element; locational variants are means, not elements; Mathis peek at records does not supply required certainty | Held: apply Mathis; Georgia statute’s disjunctive locational phrasing and Georgia charging practice show alternative elements, so modified categorical approach applies. |
| Whether indictment language suffices as Shepard documents to identify elements | Indictments specifying type/place (dwelling house or business house/building) are adequate record documents to identify the statutory alternative convicted | Indictments are ambiguous ("business house" not statutory term); plea records or jury instructions absent; indictments alone fail to satisfy Taylor/Mathis certainty requirement | Held: indictments and plea records in the record identify the locational element (dwelling or building) for each conviction — sufficient. |
| Whether Eleventh Circuit precedent and state decisions require a different result | Prior Eleventh Circuit decisions recognize § 16-7-1 is broader than generic burglary but have treated locational alternatives as divisible in related contexts | Georgia precedents (Lloyd, jury instructions, pattern instructions) show dwelling/building are a single element — statute indivisible | Held: majority finds Eleventh Circuit precedent (e.g., Howard distinction) and Georgia charging practice support divisibility; dissent disagrees but is not the decision of the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (superseding guidance on "generic" burglary and categorical approach)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. (2016) (elements-vs-means test; divisibility and modified categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. (elements, not facts; use of modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (Shepard documents as limited record sources for modified categorical inquiry)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause void for vagueness — limits inquiry to enumerated/element clauses)
- Howard v. United States, 742 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2014) (discusses divisibility where statute uses a defined locational term)
- Bennett v. United States, 472 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2006) (Georgia burglary statute broader than generic burglary)
- Owens v. United States, 672 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and ACCA analysis)