United States v. Randy Belcher, 40 F.4th 430

In 2020 Randy Belcher pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Belcher had six prior Tennessee convictions: one aggravated burglary and five robberies; the district court imposed a 15-year ACCA mandatory minimum based on those priors.
The Sixth Circuit’s prior decision in United States v. Mitchell treated Tennessee robbery as a "violent felony" under the ACCA elements clause, which the district court applied here.
Belcher argued Mitchell is undermined by Elonis and Borden because those decisions require a culpable mens rea and exclude reckless or negligent threats from the ACCA’s elements clause; he contends Tennessee robbery can be satisfied by negligently causing fear.
The court concluded Tennessee law requires intentional or knowing acts to establish the fear/violence element of robbery, and Tennessee precedents have not construed the fear element to permit mere negligence; thus Mitchell remains correct.
Belcher also argued a jury (not the court) must find that prior offenses were "committed on occasions different from one another;" the panel relied on circuit precedent rejecting that Apprendi challenge and found the district court’s factual finding (priors years apart) correct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tennessee robbery qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony" post-Elonis and Borden	Belcher: Elonis and Borden require intentional conduct; Tennessee robbery can be satisfied by negligently causing fear, so it is not a violent felony	Government: Tennessee robbery requires intentional or knowing conduct to instill fear or use force; thus it fits the ACCA elements clause	Affirmed: Tennessee robbery remains a violent felony under the ACCA; Mitchell still controls
Whether a jury must, under Apprendi, determine that priors were "committed on occasions different from one another"	Belcher: Apprendi requires jury finding of the separate-occasions element	Government: Sixth Circuit precedent holds the date/occasion is implicit in a prior conviction and need not be re-proved to a jury	Affirmed: Court follows Johnson; district court correctly found priors were on different occasions

United States v. Mitchell, 743 F.3d 1054 (6th Cir. 2014) (held Tennessee robbery is an ACCA violent felony)
Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015) (addressed mens rea required for criminal threats)
Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) (held reckless offenses are not covered by ACCA elements clause)
State v. Taylor, 771 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1989) (fear element is fear of bodily injury and present personal peril)
State v. Witherspoon, 648 S.W.2d 279 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (upheld robbery conviction where defendant intended to intimidate)
Sloan v. State, 491 S.W.2d 858 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972) (discussed intent to intimidate in robbery context)
United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2006) (held date/occasion of prior conviction implicit; no jury finding required)
Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) (separation in time and lack of common scheme relevant to counting priors)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (principle that certain sentencing facts must be found by a jury)