United States v. Robert Benton, Jr., 24 F.4th 309

Robert Benton Jr. was convicted of multiple offenses including felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and received an ACCA-enhanced sentence of 360 months on the § 922(g) count.
Benton’s PSR identified four prior convictions as ACCA predicates: ABHAN (1987), ABIK (1989), involuntary manslaughter (1991), and distribution of crack cocaine (Sept. 13, 1991).
After Johnson (invalidating the ACCA residual clause), Benton sought § 2255 relief arguing two PSR predicates (ABHAN and involuntary manslaughter) no longer qualified, leaving fewer than three predicates.
The district court agreed two predicates were invalid but treated the Sept. 13, 1991 drug arrest as four separate predicate convictions (relying on the PSR’s criminal-history details and applying the Linney multi-factor test), preserving the ACCA enhancement.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit held this constituted a Hodge error because the government relied on additional predicates not identified as ACCA predicates at sentencing, depriving Benton of notice and the opportunity to contest them when the government bore the burden.
The court rejected the government’s concurrent-sentence argument (First Step Act exposure made review necessary), reversed the denial of § 2255 relief as to the ACCA enhancement, vacated the § 922(g) sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Benton)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Whether the government may, on collateral review, count convictions not identified as ACCA predicates at sentencing to sustain an ACCA enhancement	PSR listed the Sept. 13, 1991 drug arrest as a single predicate; under Hodge the government cannot substitute or enlarge predicates on collateral review	The PSR’s criminal-history details show multiple convictions from the arrest, so government may rely on them now to preserve the enhancement	Hodge controls: government may not rely on predicates not identified at sentencing; reversal required
Whether the concurrent-sentence doctrine forecloses review because Benton has concurrent 360-month sentences on other counts	Reduction of the § 922(g) sentence could affect eligibility for First Step Act relief; collateral consequences exist so review is required	A reduced § 922(g) sentence would not change Benton’s overall punishment because of concurrent equal-length sentences	Court refused to apply the doctrine given First Step Act implications and discretionary considerations; review and vacatur ordered

United States v. Hodge, 902 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2018) (government must identify all convictions it will use for ACCA at sentencing)
United States v. Linney, 819 F.3d 747 (4th Cir. 2016) (multi-factor test for whether multiple convictions from same arrest are separate occasions)
United States v. Letterlough, 63 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 1995) (discussing requirement predicates be on different occasions)
United States v. Pettiford, 612 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2010) (allocation of burdens on ACCA predicate proof at sentencing)
United States v. Charles, 932 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2019) (limitations on concurrent-sentence doctrine when collateral relief may change net result)
United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act implications for offenses involving crack cocaine)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual clause invalid for vagueness)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson is retroactive on collateral review)
United States v. Ashford, 718 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2013) (forgiveness of forfeiture and de novo review in certain circumstances)