United States v. Patterson
853 F.3d 298
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patterson was stopped in Akron, Ohio, with a stolen Smith & Wesson pistol; state charges resulted in guilty pleas to receiving stolen property and driving under suspension.
- A federal indictment charged Patterson under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm; he moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, which the district court denied.
- Patterson had three prior Ohio convictions: two counts of aggravated robbery and one aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, arising from separate armed robberies.
- At federal sentencing the PSR treated aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), producing a base offense level of 20; the district court applied the Guidelines treatment but declined to apply the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) sentence enhancement.
- Patterson appealed both the denial of his double jeopardy motion and his sentence; the Government cross-appealed the ACCA ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Patterson) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether successive state and federal prosecutions violated Double Jeopardy | Federal prosecution was improper or in bad faith given state plea negotiations | Separate sovereigns may prosecute the same conduct; no evidence of federal participation in state plea | Court rejected double jeopardy claim; affirmed denial of dismissal |
| Whether Ohio aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon qualifies as a "violent felony" under the ACCA elements clause | Statute lacks a stand‑alone physical‑force element and could cover scenarios without threats to a person | Ohio Supreme Court treats display/brandish/indicate/use of a deadly weapon as an implied threat of physical harm, satisfying the elements clause | Court held the Ohio offense qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA elements clause; reversed and remanded for ACCA sentencing |
| Whether aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon is a "crime of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines §4B1.2(a)(1) | Claim raised for first time below; argues statute doesn’t require threatened physical force against a person | Ohio precedent and prior Sixth Circuit authority show the statute requires implied threat of physical harm; Guidelines elements clause parallels ACCA | Court held aggravated robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines; affirmed base offense level calculation |
| Whether any vagueness/residual‑clause problem invalidates the Guidelines application | Implicit challenge to applying the residual clause or vagueness | Beckles forecloses vagueness challenges to the advisory Guidelines; residual clause was still in effect at sentencing | Even if elements analysis were insufficient, Guidelines residual clause would apply; no plain error; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) (successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns do not violate Double Jeopardy)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (categorical approach to determining a qualifying predicate offense)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (use realistic probability, not theoretical possibility, in categorical analysis)
- State v. Evans, 911 N.E.2d 889 (Ohio 2009) (Ohio Supreme Court construing aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon to carry an implied threat of physical harm)
- United States v. Anderson, 695 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2012) (aggravated assault under Ohio law qualifies as violent force under the elements clause)
- United States v. Gloss, 661 F.3d 317 (6th Cir. 2011) (statutory elements that encompass threatened or actual violent force may satisfy the elements clause)
- United States v. Priddy, 808 F.3d 676 (6th Cir. 2015) (relying on state precedent in categorical analysis)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (advisory Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges)