772 F.3d 560
8th Cir.2014Background
- Langston pled guilty to possessing a firearm illegally.
- District court imposed 180-month term under ACCA mandatory minimum.
- Langston appeals two predicate convictions as ACCA predicates and Sixth Amendment jury-right challenge.
- Court identifies four prior convictions as violent felonies: terrorism, going armed with intent, theft, burglary.
- Court affirms judgment after applying ACCA predicate analysis and recidivism exception to prior-conviction enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Langston’s terrorism conviction is a violent felony under ACCA | Langston argues terrorism conviction may not fit §924(e)(2)(B)(I) | The court should treat the Iowa terrorism provision as involving force/threat | Yes; terrorism conviction is a violent felony under ACCA |
| Whether Langston’s going armed with intent conviction is a violent felony | Langston contends it may not fall under ACCA predicate | Section 708.8 fits ACCA’s residual/serious-risk category | Yes; going armed with intent is a violent felony under ACCA |
| Whether the Fourth Predicate (and recidivism) supports ACCA classification and sentence | Argues insufficient predicate count or improper use | District court correctly counted four predicates | Langston is an armed career criminal for sentencing purposes |
| Whether the Sixth Amendment requires jury finding on prior convictions after Alleyne | Alleyne requires jury determination for enhanced penalties | Recidivism exception preserves enhancements by prior convictions | Recidivism exception allows non-jury determination for prior-conviction enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Forrest, 611 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2010) (threat/violence elements fit first clause of §924(e)(2)(B)(I))
- United States v. Tucker, 740 F.3d 1177 (8th Cir. 2014) (en banc; categorical approach to ACCA predicates)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (categorical approach; reliance on conviction record)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (limits on ACCA predicate definition via categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (framework for categorical approach to prior offenses)
- Abrahamson v. United States, 731 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2013) (recidivism exception to jury requirement remains after Alleyne)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (exception for prior convictions; not compelled to present to jury)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (review of divisible bases for conviction limited to record facts)