207 F. Supp. 3d 915
W.D. Ark.2016Background
- Nelson Rockwell pled guilty in 2011 to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and was sentenced in 2012 under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 180 months based on three prior burglary-related convictions.
- The PSR identified three prior violent felony convictions as ACCA predicates: Kansas burglary (1998), Missouri second-degree burglary (1998), and Iowa attempted third-degree burglary (1999).
- Rockwell filed a § 2255 motion in 2016 arguing two of those prior burglary convictions (Missouri 1998; Iowa 1999) no longer qualify as ACCA predicates after Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause.
- The Government initially opposed but, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis v. United States (clarifying the categorical/modified categorical approach), conceded in a sur-reply that those two convictions do not qualify as ACCA predicates.
- The district court agreed: Missouri’s statute was broader than generic burglary and indivisible in the relevant respect (Mathis control), and Iowa’s burglary statute likewise did not qualify. The court vacated Rockwell’s ACCA enhancement and ordered resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Rockwell’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rockwell’s Missouri second-degree burglary conviction qualifies as an ACCA “burglary” predicate after Johnson and Mathis | Missouri burglary is broader than generic burglary and cannot be counted as an ACCA predicate | Initially argued it could still qualify; later conceded it did not under Mathis | Court held the Missouri statute enumerates means (not divisible elements) and is broader than generic burglary, so it is not an ACCA predicate |
| Whether Rockwell’s Iowa attempted third-degree burglary conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate after Johnson and Mathis | Iowa attempted burglary is broader than the generic burglary definition and therefore not a predicate | Initially argued it could qualify; later conceded under Mathis/Pledge holdings it does not | Court held Iowa statute is broader and not a qualifying ACCA burglary predicate |
| Whether the ACCA enhancement must be vacated and Rockwell resentenced given invalidated residual clause | Enhancement invalid because two of three predicates depended on the residual clause post-Johnson | Conceded enhancement is invalid after Mathis; urged vacatur | Court granted § 2255 relief, vacated sentence, ordered revised PSR and resentencing |
| Applicability of the categorical vs. modified categorical approach after Mathis | Statutes that merely list alternative factual means cannot be treated as divisible elements for modified categorical use | Government initially disagreed but then concedes Mathis controls | Court applied Mathis: where listed locations are means, modified categorical approach is inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (holding Johnson announced a new substantive rule with retroactive effect on collateral review)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (clarifying when the modified categorical approach applies and distinguishing elements from means)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (adopting the generic-offense approach for assessing ACCA predicates)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (holding courts cannot consult extra-record documents for indivisible statutes; affirmed limits on modified categorical approach)