United States v. Washington
629 F.3d 403
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Washington pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- Under ACCA, a 15-year minimum applies to § 922(g) defendants with three qualifying prior convictions.
- Washington admitted two qualifying predicates but contested whether a November 1999 Maryland possession-with-intent-to-distribute conviction counts as his third.
- Maryland’s possession with intent to distribute offense is ambiguous for ACCA purposes, requiring a modified categorical approach and factual findings beyond the offense’s elements.
- The district court, applying a preponderance standard, found the November 1999 conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate, sentencing Washington to 180 months.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding Shepard limits but does not heighten the standard of proof; the district court properly relied on Shepard-approved records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard applies to proving ACCA predicate in this context? | Washington argues for a heightened or reasonable-doubt standard under Shepard. | Government argues for preponderance under Harcum and related precedent. | Preponderance of the evidence governs the predicate determination. |
| Does Shepard require exclusivity to conclusive records for determining the offense of conviction? | Washington contends Shepard confines records to a narrow, conclusive set. | Government urges Shepard limits but does not require heightened proof and allows related records. | Shepard governs which records may be consulted, not the proof standard; district court permissible records were allowed. |
| Did the district court properly determine the November 1999 Maryland conviction was for an ACCA-predicate narcotic? | Washington highlights inconsistencies and argues the records do not reliably show a qualifying narcotic. | Government shows the Information and docket records establish a qualifying narcotic offense. | Yes; the information and Shepard-approved records support that the conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate. |
| Is the November 1999 conviction alone sufficient to count as the third ACCA predicate? | Washington challenges sufficiency given record inconsistencies. | Government need only prove the nature of the conviction via admissible records under Shepard. | The November 1999 conviction suffices as the third ACCA predicate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (defines permissible record universe for modified categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (pragmatic approach to avoid evidentiary disputes at sentencing)
- Harcum, 587 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2009) (applies preponderance standard in modified categorical context)
- Martinez-Melgar, 591 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes offense existence from its substantive nature under Shepard)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (U.S. 2010) (cites modified categorical approach permitting court records to prove conviction basis)