United States v. Sherwin Archie
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21713
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2011 Sherwin Archie robbed a Family Dollar with a firearm, was arrested after police found the gun at his home, and confessed; he pleaded guilty to firearm-possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), Hobbs Act robbery, and a § 924(c) count pursuant to a written plea agreement.
- The plea agreement included an express, knowing, and voluntary waiver of all rights to appeal "whatever sentence is imposed," and warned Archie of possible ACCA exposure.
- The PSR designated Archie as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) based on three prior convictions (1977 NY third-degree robbery; 1983 NY attempted burglary; 1994 NC assault), which raised statutory minimums to 180 months for Counts One and Two and 84 months for the § 924(c) brandishing minimum.
- At sentencing the district court found by a preponderance that Archie had brandished the firearm, and it accepted the PSR and imposed mandatory minima (180 months consecutive plus 84 months).
- After sentencing the Supreme Court decided Alleyne (holding facts that increase mandatory minima are elements for the jury), and Archie appealed arguing (1) Alleyne entitles him to relief despite his waiver and (2) the Government failed to prove the 1977 NY robbery conviction for ACCA purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Archie may rely on Alleyne despite an appeal waiver | Alleyne error is a fundamental constitutional claim that falls outside a general appeal waiver and thus he can challenge the judicial finding of brandishing | The plea agreement waived the right to appeal any sentence; Archie was sentenced consistent with then-binding law (Harris), so the waiver bars Alleyne-based relief | Waiver enforced; Alleyne does not void a valid, knowing appeal waiver when sentence complied with law at time of sentencing |
| Whether the Government produced sufficient evidence to prove the 1977 NY robbery conviction for ACCA | Records contain inconsistent dates and stray docket numbers, so Government failed to prove the conviction was Archie's | Government produced multiple corroborating documents (certified printout, certificate of disposition, ATF report, court correspondence) establishing the conviction by a preponderance | Court affirmed: district court did not clearly err in finding the conviction existed despite minor clerical inconsistencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements that must be found by a jury)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (prior rule allowing judicial factfinding to increase mandatory minimums)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (sentencing law change invoked in analogous precedent about plea waivers)
- United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (appeal waiver bars subsequent challenges based on later changes in law)
- United States v. Washington, 629 F.3d 403 (4th Cir. 2011) (district courts may rely on certified printouts and secondary records to prove existence of prior convictions despite inconsistencies)
- United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727 (4th Cir. 1994) (scope and enforceability of appeal waivers)
- United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (plea colloquy evidence supports finding that waivers were knowing and intelligent)