United States v. Steven Walker, 953 F.3d 577

Defendant Steven Walker, a felon, was found in possession of a firearm and pled guilty to being a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The Government produced certified judgments showing Walker had three prior felony convictions under California Penal Code § 273.5 (willfully inflicting corporal injury) from 1998, 1999, and 2014.
The district court found those were three separate violent felonies and applied the ACCA mandatory 15-year minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
Walker did not admit the separateness of the prior convictions and appealed, arguing (1) § 273.5 is not a categorical "violent felony" because it does not require intent to harm, and (2) the Sixth Amendment required a jury, not a judge, to find the prior convictions occurred on different occasions.
The Ninth Circuit found both arguments foreclosed by circuit precedent and affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convictions under Cal. Penal Code § 273.5 qualify as an ACCA "violent felony" (element requires use of physical force)	U.S.: § 273.5 includes willful infliction of injury and is a categorical violent felony under precedent	Walker: § 273.5 can be convicted without intent to harm (e.g., slight touching), so it lacks the required element of force	Court: Affirmed prior Ninth Circuit decisions; § 273.5 is a categorical violent felony (willfully inflicting force resulting in traumatic condition)
Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find that prior convictions occurred on separate occasions for ACCA purposes	U.S.: Judge may determine the fact of prior convictions and associated dates from certified records; separateness falls within prior-conviction exception	Walker: Apprendi/Mathis require a jury to find non-elemental facts used to increase penalty, so a jury must find separateness	Court: Followed Grisel and related authority; judge may determine separateness from the face of certified judgments; Mathis did not overrule Grisel

United States v. Laurico-Yeno, 590 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding § 273.5 involves willful infliction of injury and is a crime of violence for guideline purposes)
Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (§ 273.5 is a categorical crime of violence under statutory definition identical to ACCA provision)
United States v. Ayala-Nicanor, 659 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 2011) (reaffirming Laurico-Yeno and Banuelos-Ayon against arguments that minor touching could qualify)
United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding sentencing judge may find dates/occasions of prior convictions under Apprendi's prior-conviction exception)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (limits judicial inquiry to statutory elements, not factual means, when determining whether a conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase penalty must be found by a jury, but prior-conviction exception permits judicial notice of prior convictions)