United States v. Roger Henderson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20139
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Henderson, a felon, was arrested with a firearm near a Pittsburgh middle school and pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1).
- The Presentence Report identified at least three prior Pennsylvania convictions for possession with intent to deliver controlled substances, which the government treated as ACCA "serious drug offenses."
- The District Court found three qualifying predicate convictions (including a 2004 heroin conviction under 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 780‑113(a)(30) and (f)(1)) and imposed ACCA’s 15‑year mandatory minimum.
- Henderson challenged two prior convictions as non‑qualifying and argued the state statute § 780‑113(f)(1) is indivisible (so the modified categorical approach cannot be used) and that some record documents were insufficient to show the substance element.
- The Third Circuit considered whether § 780‑113(f)(1) is divisible (elements vs. means) under Mathis and whether the record documents permitted a Shepard‑compliant “peek” to identify the controlled substance.
- The court concluded § 780‑113(f)(1) is divisible (drug identity is an element), the district court permissibly used the modified categorical approach, and the available charging/conviction records established the heroin conviction as an ACCA predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 780‑113(f)(1) is divisible (elements) or indivisible (means) for ACCA purposes | § 780‑113(f)(1) lists many substances and thus reflects means, not alternative elements, so it is indivisible | The statute cross‑references an exhaustive schedule list making drug identity a distinct element; thus it is divisible | Divisible: drug identity is an element; modified categorical approach applies |
| Whether the modified categorical approach may be used to identify the specific controlled substance underlying the state conviction | The court lacked sufficiently precise record documents to show the specific drug; without certainty the conviction cannot be an ACCA predicate | The charging instrument, plea/sentencing records, and a reliable court report establish the substance (heroin) under Shepard‑permitted documents | Records supplied the requisite certainty; conviction qualifies as a serious drug offense |
| Whether Cabrera‑Umanzor and similar decisions compel treating the statute as illustrative/means | Relies on Cabrera‑Umanzor to argue analogous statutes were illustrative and thus not divisible | Distinguishes Cabrera‑Umanzor: Pennsylvania law and §780‑104 create an exhaustive schedule and state cases treat drug identity as an element | Cabrera‑Umanzor inapposite; Pennsylvania authorities treat drug identity as element |
| Constitutional challenge to ACCA sentence increase (Fifth/Sixth Amendment) | Prior convictions increased sentence without being charged in the indictment, violating Apprendi line | Precedent (Almendarez‑Torres) permits judicial fact‑finding of prior convictions for sentencing | Constitutional challenge foreclosed by Almendarez‑Torres; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes elements from means and prescribes methods to decide divisibility)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (explains categorical vs. modified categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (foundational categorical‑approach precedent)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits records eligible for the modified categorical/Shepard peek)
- United States v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2014) (held § 780‑113(a)(30) divisible; applied modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Tucker, 703 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2012) (recognized drug identity as an element under § 780‑113(a)(30))
- Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2014) (controlled‑substances statute with disjunctive schedule language found divisible)