United States v. Nathaniel Ozier, 796 F.3d 597

Defendant Nathaniel Ozier pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) and was sentenced to 168 months.
The PSR treated Ozier as a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on at least two prior Tennessee aggravated burglary convictions (Tenn. Code § 39-14-403), classifying them as "burglary of a dwelling" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2).
Without the career‑offender designation, Ozier's Guidelines range would have been substantially lower (77–96 months vs. 151–188 months as a career offender).
Ozier challenged the enhancement, arguing (1) Descamps prohibits using Shepard materials because Tennessee's aggravated burglary statute is indivisible (i.e., broader than the generic burglary of a dwelling), and (2) the Guidelines' residual clause is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson.
The government responded that Tennessee's statute is divisible, the plea colloquies (Shepard documents) show Ozier pleaded to burglarizing dwellings, and alternatively the convictions fit the Guidelines' residual clause.
The district court applied the modified categorical approach, found the prior pleas established burglary of dwellings, treated Ozier as a career offender, and imposed the 168‑month sentence; the Sixth Circuit affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tenn. aggravated burglary statute is divisible under Descamps, permitting Shepard inquiry	N/A (government sought divisibility)	§ 39-14-401 is a definitional "means" provision, so the statute is indivisible and Shepard documents cannot be used	Statute is divisible; Shepard documents may be consulted under the modified categorical approach
Whether Ozier's aggravated burglary convictions qualify as "burglary of a dwelling" (a Guideline "crime of violence")	Government: plea colloquies show convictions were for burglarizing "residences/homes/apartment," matching generic dwelling	Ozier: statute criminalizes broader categories (outbuildings, vehicles) and so cannot categorically qualify	Plea colloquies show convictions were for dwellings; convictions qualify as crimes of violence
Whether the Guidelines' residual clause is void post‑Johnson, invalidating the career‑offender enhancement	N/A (government relied on alternative bases)	Johnson renders the Guidelines' residual clause unconstitutionally vague	Court declined to decide Johnson's effect because enhancement is supportable without the residual clause; affirmed based on dwelling burglary findings

Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (explains categorical vs. modified categorical approach and divisibility)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits documents sentencing courts may consult to determine which statutory alternative formed the conviction)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (formative authority on using limited records to identify elements of prior convictions)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA residual clause void for vagueness)
United States v. McFalls, 592 F.3d 707 (6th Cir. 2010) (defines generic "burglary of a dwelling" as intrusion on a place of habitation)
United States v. Prater, 766 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2014) (applies categorical/divisibility analysis to burglary statutes)