United States v. Timothy Phillips
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9704
6th Cir.2014Background
- Timothy Phillips pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- District court imposed an ACCA enhancement based in part on a Florida third-degree burglary of a structure (Fla. Stat. § 810.02(4)).
- Florida defines third-degree burglary as entering or remaining in a structure with intent to commit an offense, with optional public access/licensing exceptions, and with additional predicates (no assault/battery, not armed, unoccupied).
- Government contends Phillips’s Florida conviction is a violent felony under the ACCA residual clause (§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)) because of risk of confrontation with passersby and others.
- Phillips challenges: (i) whether the conviction is a generic burglary under Taylor/Shepard; (ii) whether the residual clause applies given the “unoccupied” structure; (iii) whether the residual clause is void for vagueness.
- The district court accepted the government’s position on the residual clause without resolving generic burglary; on appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, adopting a residual-clause analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Florida third-degree burglary of a structure is a violent felony under the ACCA residual clause | Phillips argues it is not (not generically analogous to burglary). | The government contends the Florida crime poses a serious potential risk similar to generic burglary. | Yes; Florida third-degree burglary of a structure is a violent felony under the ACCA residual clause. |
| Whether Phillips’s conviction is a generic burglary under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) | Phillips contends the record lacks Shepard documents proving generic burglary. | The government argues the evidence would support generic burglary if structure vs. curtilage were shown. | No; not established as generic burglary under the record; but residual-clause analysis applies. |
| Whether the ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague | Phillips asserts vagueness under the residual clause. | The government contends residual clause is not void for vagueness and is binding precedent. | Not unconstitutionally vague; clause sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (postulates when evidence fails to show generic burglary under ACCA)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (residual-clause risk assessed by comparing to closest enumerated offense)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (examines risk comparison to generic burglary; 'roughly similar' standard for residual clause)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (requires 'roughly similar' risk in residual-clause analysis)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defines generic burglary for ACCA purposes)
- United States v. Ortkiese, 208 F. App’x 436 (2006) (unpublished; structure burglary precedent in Sixth Circuit)