795 F.3d 923
8th Cir.2015Background
- Langston pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- The district court sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to the 180-month mandatory minimum, finding four prior convictions were violent felonies: terrorism, going armed with intent, theft, and burglary.
- Langston did not contest that theft and burglary were qualifying predicate offenses.
- This court previously affirmed Langston’s ACCA sentence, treating the terrorism conviction as a predicate under the ACCA’s force clause and the going-armed conviction as a predicate under the ACCA’s residual clause (United States v. Langston, 772 F.3d 560).
- The Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Johnson v. United States, which invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague.
- On remand, the panel held the going-armed conviction no longer qualifies under the invalidated residual clause, but the terrorism conviction still qualifies under the ACCA’s enumerated (force) clause, leaving at least three qualifying predicates and sustaining the ACCA sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Langston's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson invalidates the going-armed-with-intent conviction as an ACCA predicate | The going-armed conviction cannot serve as a predicate after Johnson because the residual clause is void for vagueness | The conviction previously qualified under the residual clause | Held for Langston: going-armed no longer qualifies post-Johnson |
| Whether the terrorism conviction qualifies under the ACCA’s force clause | Terrorism conviction may not have the required element of force (implicit challenge) | Terrorism conviction has as an element the use/threat of physical force and thus qualifies under the first (force) clause | Held for United States: terrorism conviction is a qualifying violent felony under the force clause |
| Whether, after removing the invalid predicate, Langston still has three qualifying predicates to sustain an ACCA sentence | Removing the residual-clause predicate defeats ACCA classification | Even without the going-armed predicate, terrorism + theft + burglary equal three predicates | Held for United States: sufficient predicates remain; ACCA sentence stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Langston, 772 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 2014) (prior panel decision affirming ACCA sentence and treating going-armed conviction under the residual clause)
- United States v. Archuleta, 412 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing harmless-error principles in sentencing challenges)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard)