United States v. Reed, III
830 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2016Background
- Reed robbed a Family Dollar in Maine while brandishing a hunting rifle; he pled guilty to robbery (Hobbs Act), brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and being a felon in possession with an ACCA-count.
- Reed had three prior Maine state convictions within a five-month period in 2008: two drug-trafficking offenses (July and September) and a bank robbery (November); the state later consolidated sentencing under a plea agreement.
- The probation officer treated Reed as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, producing a Guidelines range of 346–411 months after accounting for the consecutive 84-month § 924(c) term.
- The district court sustained the career-offender determination, concluded the ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimum applied, but granted a substantial downward departure and variance and imposed a 192‑month sentence.
- On appeal Reed contested (1) the career-offender enhancement (arguing his prior convictions should be treated as a single sentence), (2) application of the ACCA (arguing consolidation meant fewer than three ACCA predicates), and (3) whether his robbery predicate qualified as a "violent felony."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reed is a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 | — | Reed: his multiple prior convictions should count as one because they were effectively consolidated/"sentenced" the same day under a plea agreement | Court: career‑offender enhancement proper; intervening arrest meant separate prior sentences counted; Reed waived earlier objection to arrest date |
| Whether Reed has three ACCA predicates (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) given state consolidation | — | Reed: plea agreement consolidated the convictions into a single predicate; thus ACCA does not apply | Court: ACCA applies; separate judgments and prior precedent reject consolidation-as-merger; offenses were on different occasions |
| Whether prior bank robbery is an ACCA "violent felony" after Johnson | — | Reed: (argued below generally) but on appeal did not argue Maine robbery fails the force clause; alternatively relied on consolidation and Johnson | Court: No Johnson problem because district did not rely on residual clause; Reed failed to show robbery doesn’t satisfy the force clause, so conviction qualifies |
| Whether any ACCA error would require remand (plain‑error / harmlessness) | — | Reed: any error in ACCA application was prejudicial | Court: even if ACCA application were erroneous, harmless — career‑offender calculation independently produced a much higher Guidelines range and district court stated the sentence was appropriate apart from ACCA |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Riddle, 47 F.3d 460 (1st Cir. 1995) (consolidation for sentencing does not merge ACCA predicates)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (Guidelines calculation error can be harmless where record shows court would impose same sentence)
- United States v. Teague, 469 F.3d 205 (1st Cir. 2006) (erroneous Guidelines enhancement may be harmless where court explains sentence and statutory factors)
- United States v. Hart, 674 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard of review for preserved sentencing challenges)