United States v. Shannon Ferguson
868 F.3d 514
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Shannon Ferguson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- At sentencing the district court found Ferguson had at least three prior Tennessee convictions that qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), triggering a 15-year mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
- Ferguson’s eight prior Tennessee convictions consisted of three burglary convictions (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-402) and five aggravated burglary convictions (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-403).
- The parties disputed whether those prior convictions matched the ACCA’s definition of violent felony (i.e., whether they were Colorado/generic burglary or otherwise predicate offenses).
- The Sixth Circuit applied its precedent distinguishing Tennessee burglary (Class D: subsections (a)(1)–(3)) as matching generic burglary, while Tennessee aggravated burglary no longer counts as a predicate offense after the en banc decision in Stitt.
- Because Ferguson had three qualifying Class D burglary convictions, the court affirmed the ACCA enhancement and the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ferguson’s Tennessee aggravated burglary convictions count as ACCA predicates | Aggravated burglary convictions qualify as violent felonies | Aggravated burglary is broader than generic burglary and should not qualify | Aggravated burglary does not qualify after en banc Stitt; they are not ACCA predicates |
| Whether Ferguson’s Tennessee burglary (Class D) convictions count as ACCA predicates | Class D burglary convictions do not match generic burglary because intent can be formed inside | Class D burglary fits the generic definition of burglary | Class D burglary convictions qualify as violent felonies under Priddy and count as ACCA predicates |
| Whether Priddy remains binding despite later en banc decisions | Priddy’s reasoning on subsection (a)(3) is flawed; it should not be followed | Priddy is binding precedent; only en banc or Supreme Court can overrule a panel | Priddy remains controlling for Tennessee burglary; panels cannot overrule it |
| Whether the district court properly applied ACCA to impose mandatory minimum | Sentencing court erred by counting nonqualifying convictions | District court properly relied on three qualifying burglary convictions | Affirmed: district court correctly imposed ACCA enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stitt, 860 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. en banc 2017) (held Tennessee aggravated burglary is broader than generic burglary and is not an ACCA predicate)
- United States v. Priddy, 808 F.3d 676 (6th Cir. 2015) (held Tennessee Class D burglary fits Taylor’s generic burglary and counts as ACCA predicate)
- United States v. Nance, 481 F.3d 882 (6th Cir. 2007) (prior panel precedent concerning Tennessee aggravated burglary later overruled by Stitt)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (articulated the ‘‘generic burglary’’ definition used for ACCA analysis)
- Salmi v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2014) (panel decision cannot overrule another panel; only en banc or Supreme Court can)