United States v. Terry White, 987 F.3d 340

Terry Antonio White pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm; the presentence report recommended an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement based in part on a Virginia common-law robbery conviction.
White argued Virginia common-law robbery does not qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because it can be committed without threatened physical force — specifically by threatening to accuse the victim of sodomy.
The district court concluded the Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling v. United States abrogated Fourth Circuit precedent (United States v. Winston) and thus Virginia robbery could satisfy the ACCA force clause.
The district court also held the Virginia decisions mentioning a “sodomy exception” were dicta and never applied to convict a defendant on that theory, so robbery-by-sodomy-threat was not a valid basis to avoid the ACCA enhancement.
The Fourth Circuit agreed Stokeling displaced Winston’s analysis but found no controlling Virginia precedent resolving whether threatening to accuse a victim of sodomy constitutes common-law robbery; it certified that question to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Stokeling abrogate Winston, altering the force analysis for ACCA predicates?	U.S.: Stokeling means even slight force that overcomes resistance satisfies ACCA; Winston is no longer controlling.	White: Winston remains controlling; Virginia robbery can be de minimis force and thus not an ACCA predicate.	Held: Yes. Stokeling abrogated Winston; Virginia robbery aligns with Stokeling’s framework.
Can Virginia common-law robbery be committed solely by threatening to accuse the victim of sodomy (i.e., without threatened physical force)?	U.S.: Virginia robbery requires force or intimidation sufficient to overcome resistance; sodomy-threat is not a valid nonphysical means to avoid ACCA's force clause.	White: Virginia decisions (e.g., Houston) recognize a “sodomy exception” allowing robbery by threat of accusing sodomy, so no threatened physical force is required.	Held: Unclear under Virginia law; Fourth Circuit found no controlling Virginia precedent and certified the question to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Did White waive his right to appeal the enhanced ACCA sentence?	U.S.: The plea waiver bars appeal.	White: The plea agreement preserved the right to appeal a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum; enhanced sentence exceeded ten years.	Held: Waiver does not bar this appeal; the agreement’s language left open challenge to an enhanced sentence.

Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) (holding that overcoming a victim’s resistance, however slight, satisfies ACCA’s force clause)
United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2017) (prior Fourth Circuit holding that Virginia robbery could be committed by de minimis force and thus did not qualify under ACCA)
United States v. Dinkins, 928 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2019) (applying Stokeling to hold North Carolina common-law robbery qualifies as an ACCA predicate)
Houston v. Commonwealth, 12 S.E. 385 (Va. 1890) (discussing a historical “sodomy exception” in English/common-law formulations of robbery)
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 163 S.E.2d 570 (Va. 1968) (defining Virginia robbery as taking from a person against his will by violence or intimidation)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 496 S.E.2d 668 (Va. Ct. App. 1998) (illustrating slight physical force overcoming resistance in a Virginia robbery context)