United States v. Ridens, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11951

Ridens pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
At sentencing the district court applied the ACCA 15-year mandatory minimum based on three prior qualifying convictions.
One of the prior convictions was a Kansas burglary conviction under a statute that was broader than the "generic" burglary definition (included vehicles and other conveyances).
The government relied on the amended information (Count III), Ridens’s petition to plead guilty, and the journal entry—each reflecting a plea to burglary of a residence with intent to commit theft or felony.
Ridens argued (1) the Kansas burglary did not qualify as an ACCA "violent felony" because the record did not prove it was the generic burglary, and (2) using judge-found facts about prior convictions to trigger the ACCA enhancement violated the Sixth Amendment.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the Sixth Amendment challenge under Supreme Court precedent and concluding the charging document was sufficiently "generically limited" under Shepard to count as a qualifying burglary.

Issue	Ridens' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the Kansas burglary conviction qualifies as an ACCA "violent felony"	The burglary statute was divisible/broader than the generic definition and the record lacks proof the conviction was for generic burglary	Ridens pleaded guilty to a generically limited information (entry into a residence with intent to commit theft/felony), so the conviction is generic under Shepard/Descamps	The conviction qualified; the charging document was generically limited and sufficient under the modified categorical approach
Whether judicial factfinding of prior convictions to trigger the ACCA mandatory minimum violates the Sixth Amendment	Alleyne requires any fact increasing penalty be found by a jury, so a jury must find prior convictions	Supreme Court precedent (Almendarez-Torres) permits judicial finding of prior convictions for sentence enhancements; Alleyne expressly did not overrule that holding	Sixth Amendment challenge rejected; Almendarez-Torres controls

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (charging document and limited plea materials can establish that a guilty plea admitted the elements of a generic offense)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (distinguishes categorical and modified categorical approaches for divisible statutes)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions may be found by the court and used to enhance sentence)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements to be found by a jury, but did not overrule Almendarez-Torres)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury)
United States v. Cartwright, 678 F.3d 907 (10th Cir. 2012) (discusses ACCA burglary analysis and application of categorical approaches)
United States v. Trent, 767 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 2014) (defines generic burglary used in categorical analysis)