United States v. Ralph Hale
705 F. App'x 876
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ralph Hale pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of two firearms found in his Florida home; district court sentenced him to 180 months under the ACCA enhancement.
- Sentencing relied on three prior Florida convictions: one aggravated battery with great bodily harm (§ 784.045(1)(a)(1)) and multiple § 893.13(1) drug convictions (possession/delivery of controlled substances).
- The district court treated Hale as an Armed Career Criminal, producing a guidelines range and triggering the 15-year mandatory minimum; court imposed the mandatory minimum after an 8-month downward variance.
- Hale appealed, arguing (1) his prior convictions do not qualify as ACCA predicates, (2) the convictions were not shown to be on different occasions, (3) ACCA enhancement rested on facts not charged or admitted (Fifth/Sixth Amendment concerns), and (4) § 922(g) violates the Commerce Clause.
- The government submitted Shepard-approved documents (charging papers, judgments, plea documents) showing distinct offense dates and interstate manufacture of the firearms (admitted in plea).
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held the drug convictions qualify as “serious drug offenses,” the aggravated-battery conviction qualifies as a “violent felony” under the elements clause, the different-occasions finding was proper based on Shepard documents, and § 922(g) is constitutional as applied to Hale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hale’s prior convictions qualify as ACCA predicates | Hale: his prior convictions do not qualify (including mens rea and attempt arguments for drug convictions; aggravated battery challenge) | Government: prior drug convictions constitute "serious drug offenses" and aggravated battery is a violent felony under the elements clause | Held: Drug convictions qualify under Smith and related precedent; aggravated battery qualifies under Turner; at least three qualifying convictions existed, supporting ACCA enhancement |
| Whether the ACCA predicates were "committed on occasions different from one another" | Hale: government failed to prove separate occasions; dates are non-elemental facts that cannot be found by the court | Government: Shepard-approved documents show different offense dates for each prior conviction | Held: Court may rely on Shepard-approved documents to find distinct occasion dates; no error or plain error shown |
| Whether using uncharged/non-admitted facts (offense dates) to enhance sentence violates Fifth and Sixth Amendments | Hale: enhancement rests on facts not charged or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Government: dates are provable by Shepard documents at sentencing and do not implicate the jury-trial requirement | Held: No violation; use of Shepard documents to determine different occasions is permissible; plain-error standard not met |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) violates the Commerce Clause as applied/facially | Hale: § 922(g) is unconstitutional (facially and as applied) | Government: § 922(g) is facially valid and constitutional as applied where firearm traveled in interstate commerce (which Hale admitted) | Held: § 922(g) is constitutional as applied to Hale; he admitted firearms were manufactured out-of-state, satisfying interstate-commerce element |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (Florida § 893.13(1) convictions qualify as ACCA "serious drug offenses")
- Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013) (Florida aggravated battery with great bodily harm is a violent felony under ACCA elements clause)
- United States v. Weeks, 711 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (Shepard documents may be used at sentencing to determine predicate-offense scope and related facts)
- United States v. Sneed, 600 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (government must show prior convictions arose from separate criminal episodes)
- United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627 (11th Cir. 2013) (courts may rely on Shepard-approved documents to determine temporal distinctness of prior offenses)
- United States v. Jones, 743 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2014) (unpreserved sentencing issues reviewed for plain error)
- United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) (standards for reviewing whether a prior conviction is an ACCA violent felony or serious drug offense)
- United States v. Pridgeon, 853 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming precedents concerning controlled-substance offense definitions)
- United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2011) (§ 922(g) facially constitutional and constitutional as applied when interstate nexus shown)
- United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding § 922(g) constitutional under Commerce Clause)