United States v. Wendell Brown
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22074
8th Cir.2013Background
- Brown pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- District court sentenced him under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), with a 180-month mandatory minimum.
- Three prior convictions were found: terroristic threats, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and sale of a controlled substance.
- Brown challenged the shotgun conviction as not a violent felony and contested the ACCA residual clause as vague.
- Court reviews whether the possession of a short-barreled shotgun falls within the ACCA residual clause by comparing to listed offenses.
- Court affirms the district court’s ACCA-based sentence and rejects the vagueness challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether short-barreled shotgun possession falls under ACCA residual clause | Brown argues it lacks the required risk under residual clause | Brown contends Minnesota statute is not within residual clause’s risk | Yes; within residual clause and qualifies as ACCA predicate |
| Whether residual clause is constitutionally vague | Brown claims lack of fair notice under residual clause | Court rejects challenge, citing Supreme Court precedents | Residual clause not vague; upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Lillard v. United States, 685 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2012) (assesses ACCA predicate categorization of offenses with risk analysis)
- Vincent v. United States, 575 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2009) (residual clause risk by closest analog analysis)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (closest analog method for residual clause; offense generically considered)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (explains risk comparison to listed offenses; “special danger” focus)
- Sykes v. United States, S. Ct., 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (categorical risk comparison for residual clause analysis)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (illustrates irrelevance of inaction for residual clause risk)