United States v. Stanley Silva, 944 F.3d 993

Silva pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; district court treated him as an Armed Career Criminal and imposed a 15‑year mandatory sentence plus 5 years supervised release.
The ACCA enhancement rested on two state serious‑drug convictions and a prior Mississippi burglary conviction the court treated as a "violent felony."
The burglary entry on state records read "Burglary & Larceny." Possible statutes were Miss. Code § 97‑17‑23 (breaking into a dwelling; penalty up to 25 years) and § 97‑17‑33(1) (breaking into non‑dwelling structures; penalty up to 7 years).
The district court reviewed three documents: a Lee County judgment imposing a 25‑year sentence (15 suspended), the indictment charging entry into a dwelling, and a notice of disposition; none named the statute.
The court found § 97‑17‑23 was the statute of conviction because the indictment tracked dwelling language and the 25‑year sentence was only available under § 97‑17‑23, then applied the categorical approach and treated the burglary as generic burglary for ACCA purposes.
On appeal Silva argued the court erred in inferring the statute from those materials; the Eighth Circuit reviewed the statute‑of‑conviction finding for clear error and affirmed.

Issue	Silva's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Whether Silva's prior "Burglary & Larceny" conviction qualifies as ACCA predicate because it was under Miss. Code § 97‑17‑23 (dwelling) rather than § 97‑17‑33(1) (non‑dwelling).	District court erred by "reasoning backward"—inferring the statute from the indictment and sentence; Mathis/Shepard require certainty about generic offense.	The indictment expressly charged breaking into a dwelling, the judgment says "guilty as charged," and the 25‑year sentence is only authorized by § 97‑17‑23, so the court reasonably found that statute of conviction.	Affirmed. The district court did not clearly err; conviction corresponds to § 97‑17‑23 and is a generic burglary ACCA predicate.

United States v. Shockley, 816 F.3d 1058 (8th Cir. 2016) (categorical approach scope and application)
United States v. Twiggs, 678 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes factual inquiry into statute of conviction from modified categorical approach; clear‑error review)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (demand for certainty when using the modified categorical approach)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits documents courts may consult to identify elements of prior convictions)