United States v. Timothy Allen Weeks
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2210
11th Cir.
2013

Background

  • Weeks pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition as a felon, facing a 180-month ACCA-based sentence.
  • Indictment alleged five prior Florida felonies: three burglary of structure, one burglary tools, one aggravated battery with deadly weapon.
  • Two burglaries on December 2, 1997 involved separate locations; one burglary occurred five days before the others; final judgments dated April 1, 1999.
  • PSI applied ACCA enhancement for four prior violent felonies committed on occasions different from one another.
  • Weeks objected to the ACCA factors, to sources for those facts under Shepard, and to whether offenses were on different occasions; district court denied jury trial for ACCA facts.
  • District court sentenced Weeks to the ACCA mandatory minimum of 180 months; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether ACCA different-occasions finding may be made by judge Weeks contends Nijhawan requires jury findings beyond reasonable doubt. Weeks argues district court may not determine different occasions without jury findings. District court may determine different-occasions facts using Shepard sources.
Whether Nijhawan overruled prior ACCA approach Nijhawan forecloses circumstance-specific ACCA findings without jury findings. Nijhawan does not abrogate prior ACCA precedent permitting judge-made findings via Shepard sources. Nijhawan did not overrule the prior ACCA framework; district court acted within bounds.
Whether Shepard-approved documents suffice to show different occasions Charging documents not introduced to establish timing undermine separate-occasions finding. Charging documents and judgments show distinct structures and timing; sufficient for separate occasions. Yes; Shepard-based documents sufficiently establish different occasions for burglary predicates.
Whether December 2 burglaries were separate offenses Close temporal proximity could render them a single occasion. Three structures and distinct victims show separate offenses; time/place gaps suffice for distinct episodes. Three burglary convictions treated as separate predicates; December 2 offenses counts separately.
Whether residual-clause invalidity affects Weeks’ sentence Residual clause readings could render burglaries non-qualifying if only the residual clause applied. Enumerated-offenses clause covers generic burglary; residual clause not necessary here. Convictions qualify under the enumerated-offenses clause; residual-clause issue unnecessary.

Key Cases Cited

  • Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 2009) (circumstance-specific approach; relevance to ACCA findings)
  • Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court 1998) (prior convictions need not be charged/proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
  • Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court 2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be proven beyond doubt)
  • Shepard v. United States, 543 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court 2004) (limits sentencing findings to Shepard-approved sources)
  • U.S. v. Sneed, 600 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (permissible to use Shepard-approved sources for ACCA underlying facts)
  • U.S. v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2006) (Almendarez-Torres remains binding; ACCA determinations may rely on prior convictions)
  • U.S. v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2006) (ACCA different-occasions not required to be jury-tried)
  • U.S. v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2009) (prior-panel binding before reconsideration; overruled by later authority only if clearly abrogated)
  • Turner v. United States, 626 F.3d 566 (11th Cir. 2010) (preponderance standard for predicate offenses under ACCA)
  • Pope v. United States, 132 F.3d 684 (11th Cir. 1998) (distinct criminal episodes require time/place separations)
  • Proch v. United States, 637 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2011) (same-day burglaries at different addresses can be separate offenses)
  • Rainer v. United States, 616 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2010) (non-generic burglary can qualify if indictment shows building entry)
  • Matthews v. United States, 466 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2006) (generic burglary analysis under ACCA)
  • James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court 2007) (residual clause interpretation guidance)
  • Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (Supreme Court 2011) (residual clause upheld as intelligible)
  • Canty v. United States, 570 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2009) (defining ACCA offender predicates as distinct)
  • Massey v. United States, 443 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2006) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing challenges)
Read the full case