458 F. App'x 825
11th Cir.2012Background
- Colon appeals a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) following a guilty plea and conviction.
- The district court applied the ACCA to Colon based on three prior convictions, two Indiana aggravated-battery offenses.
- Specifically, the two Indiana convictions were for aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer and for aggravated battery of a person under fourteen, both resulting in bodily injury.
- The district court used the modified categorical approach, examining charging documents to determine if the offenses were violent felonies under ACCA.
- Colon argued in the district court that the Indiana statute contains a single means of violation and thus the modified categorical approach did not apply.
- On appeal, Colon raised the same argument and, in his reply brief, claimed the modified approach should not apply at all; the court notes it need not decide these questions here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the modified categorical approach applies when the statute has a single means of violation | Colon argued the approach is inapplicable due to a single means clause. | U.S. argued the approach may apply notwithstanding the single-means language. | Court did not decide the issue; plain-error because not raised below. |
| Whether the charging documents support that Colon's Indiana convictions were violent felonies | Colon contends the documents show no violence under ACCA. | The government contends the documents show violence for both convictions. | District court correctly concluded the charging documents showed violence. |
| Whether Colon waived the modified categorical approach issue by not raising it in district court | Colon did not raise the exact issue in district court. | The government maintains no plain-error occurred given lack of binding precedent. | Court declines to decide the issue; no plain-error established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (modified categorical approach in ACCA context)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (limits on residual clause interpretation)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (use of charging documents in modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review for unpreserved issues)
- United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (plain-error standard in ACCA context)
- United States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (non-preservation of issues in appellate review)
- United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999) (principles on first-filed-brief limitations)
- United States v. Nix, 628 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2010) (precedent foreclosing non-violent-conduct challenge to conviction)