770 F.3d 507
6th Cir.2014Background
- Robert Jenkins pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- In 1990, Kentucky convicted Jenkins of robbing nine separate homes during a drug- and alcohol-fueled spree; the parties disputed whether the spree lasted one day or four days.
- At federal sentencing the district court treated the nine prior burglaries as nine distinct violent felonies and applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), imposing the 15-year mandatory minimum.
- The court assumed, without deciding, Jenkins’ timeline (the shorter version) but concluded the offenses were committed on occasions different from one another.
- Jenkins appealed, arguing (1) the burglaries were a single occasion for ACCA purposes, (2) the statutory phrase is unconstitutionally vague, and (3) Hill and related precedent are flawed.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court’s ACCA determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nine prior burglaries were "committed on occasions different from one another" for ACCA | Jenkins: the spree was a single occasion (one night), so convictions should count as one event | Government: each burglary began and ended separately, different victims and locations — thus separate occasions | Held: separate occasions — each burglary began when he broke in and ended when he left; different homes one to two miles apart qualify as distinct felonies |
| Whether the statutory phrase is unconstitutionally vague | Jenkins: "occasions different from one another" is too vague to give fair notice | Government: longstanding judicial interpretation provides sufficient clarity; ordinary people can understand the standard | Held: not vague — precedent and ordinary meaning give adequate notice and constrain enforcement |
| Whether Hill (and its test) controls or is flawed | Jenkins: criticizes Hill via Mann, argues Hill is overbroad or misapplied | Government: Hill’s questions are helpful, non-exclusive guideposts; courts may consider other circumstances | Held: Hill is a useful, non-exclusive framework; district court properly applied the factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbour v. United States, 750 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and ACCA occasion analysis)
- Hill v. United States, 440 F.3d 292 (6th Cir. 2006) (articulating three guiding questions for "occasions different from one another")
- Brady v. United States, 988 F.2d 664 (6th Cir. 1993) (crimes committed less than an hour apart can qualify as separate occasions)
- Carnes v. United States, 309 F.3d 950 (6th Cir. 2002) (adjacent-home burglaries treated as separate offenses)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (due process vagueness standards)
- Michel v. United States, 446 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2006) (separate times, locations, victims indicate separate episodes)
- Jones v. United States, 673 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2012) (discussion of Hill questions and dictum regarding their application)