United States v. Rasheen Weston
681 F. App'x 235
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rasheen J. Weston pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in federal court and was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 180 months based on three prior South Carolina convictions: strong arm robbery, armed robbery, and pointing and presenting a firearm.
- Weston disputed that these prior convictions qualified as ACCA predicates, arguing they did not meet the ACCA’s force clause or, after Johnson, the residual clause.
- He further argued that pointing and presenting a firearm is not a violent felony, but acknowledged Fourth Circuit precedent to the contrary.
- Weston also challenged the validity of two prior convictions (pointing and presenting; strong arm robbery) on Sixth Amendment counsel grounds, asserting the record did not show he was represented or waived counsel.
- The district court treated the presentence report as indicating missing information about counsel for the strong arm robbery; Weston failed to present documentary evidence or testimony to rebut the presumption that the state court followed the statute advising of and providing counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether South Carolina strong arm robbery/armed robbery qualify as ACCA violent felonies under the force clause | Weston: robbery lacks an element of violent physical force required by ACCA force clause | Government: South Carolina robbery necessarily includes use/attempted use/threatened use of physical force | Court: Affirmed that strong arm robbery (and thus armed robbery) qualify under the ACCA force clause (Doctor controls) |
| Whether pointing and presenting a firearm is a violent felony under ACCA | Weston: points to arguments that it is not a violent felony (and asks court to revisit) | Government: Fourth Circuit precedent holds it is a qualifying offense | Court: Declined to reach due to sufficiency of other predicates; noted precedent forecloses Weston’s claim (King) |
| Whether Johnson v. United States invalidates residual-clause reliance for these convictions | Weston: post-Johnson residual clause is void and cannot support ACCA status | Government: convictions qualify under the force clause regardless of residual clause | Court: No need to rely on residual clause; force-clause analysis suffices to affirm ACCA status |
| Whether prior strong arm robbery conviction is invalid for lack of counsel, precluding ACCA use | Weston: record lacks proof he had counsel or waived it, so conviction may be invalid | Government: Presumption that state court complied with statutory advice and that any lack of counsel resulted from intelligent waiver; defendant bears heavy burden to prove invalidity | Court: Weston failed to rebut presumption or meet heavy burden; district court properly overruled the counsel-based objection |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306 (4th Cir.) (South Carolina strong arm robbery qualifies as ACCA force-clause violent felony)
- United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274 (4th Cir.) (holding pointing and presenting a firearm qualifies as a predicate offense)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (defendant may challenge prior convictions used for sentence enhancement on Sixth Amendment grounds)
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992) (presumption of regularity attaches to prior convictions; burden on defendant to show irregularity)
- United States v. Jones, 977 F.2d 105 (4th Cir.) (defendant bears heavy burden to prove prior conviction invalid; uncorroborated testimony is insufficient)
- United States v. Hondo, 366 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.) (review of whether counsel was waived; reiterates heavy burden to show invalidity)