United States v. Timothy Dale Washington, II
707 F. App'x 687
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Timothy Dale Washington II pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and received a 180-month sentence based on an ACCA enhancement.
- ACCA (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)) imposes a 15‑year mandatory minimum if the defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on different occasions.
- District court relied on Shepard‑approved documents (charging papers, plea materials, etc.) to determine the priors were committed on different occasions and to identify which statutory alternatives applied.
- The three predicate convictions were: delivery of cocaine (Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)), resisting/obstructing an officer with violence (Fla. Stat. § 843.01), and aggravated battery (Fla. Stat. § 784.045).
- Washington challenged: (1) use of Shepard materials/date-based findings for the different‑occasions inquiry and related Fifth/Sixth Amendment concerns; (2) whether the three priors qualify under ACCA; and (3) facial and as‑applied Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g).
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Shepard‑approved materials and judicial fact‑finding were permissible for these purposes and that the priors and § 922(g) challenges were foreclosed by binding precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by using Shepard‑approved documents to find priors were committed on different occasions | Washington: Shepard materials cannot be used to rely on non‑elemental facts (e.g., dates); such facts must be charged/proven | Government: Courts may use Shepard‑approved materials and judicial fact‑finding for different‑occasions inquiry | Court: No error—Shepard materials are permissible; Weeks/Overstreet control; Almendarez‑Torres allows judicial finding of prior conviction facts |
| Whether judicial finding about different occasions violated Fifth/Sixth Amendment (indictment/DOBD) | Washington: Fact that priors were on different occasions must be charged and proven beyond reasonable doubt | Government: Almendarez‑Torres and Eleventh Circuit precedent permit judicial determination of prior convictions and related facts | Court: No constitutional violation; Almendarez‑Torres remains good law and covers this inquiry |
| Whether the three prior convictions qualify as ACCA predicates | Washington: Contends one or more priors do not qualify (preserves arguments) | Government: Binding Eleventh Circuit precedent treats these Florida offenses as qualifying | Court: Each prior qualifies—drug delivery is a serious drug offense; resisting with violence and aggravated battery qualify as violent felonies per Eleventh Circuit cases |
| Whether § 922(g)(1) is facially or as‑applied unconstitutional under Commerce Clause | Washington: § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s Commerce power facially and as applied to purely intrastate conduct | Government: Precedent requires only a jurisdictional nexus (firearm traveled in interstate commerce), which is met here by plea facts | Court: Rejected both challenges as foreclosed by binding precedent; plea facts established interstate nexus |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits sentencing court to certain documents when characterizing prior convictions)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions need not be alleged in indictment or proven beyond reasonable doubt for sentence enhancement)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits use of modified categorical approach when statute has indivisible elements)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (distinguishes elements from means for categorical analysis)
- United States v. Weeks, 711 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (permitting Shepard materials for different‑occasions inquiry)
- Turner v. Warden, 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013) (Florida aggravated battery can qualify as a violent felony under ACCA elements clause)
- United States v. Hill, 799 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015) (resisting/obstructing officer with violence qualifies as violent felony under ACCA)
- United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2011) (§ 922(g)(1) constitutional because of express interstate‑commerce jurisdictional requirement)