United States v. William Davis
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15066
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Davis pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The plea delivered a fifteen-year ACCA sentence but Davis was repeatedly advised the maximum was ten years.
- Plea agreement stated non-binding recommendations and included an appeal waiver, but did not guarantee a ten-year sentence.
- Rule 11 hearing and plea proceedings likewise misstated the statutory maximum; the court and government repeated the ten-year figure.
- Presentence report designated Davis as an armed career criminal (ACCA) based on three prior convictions, yielding a fifteen-year minimum; district court imposed 180 months.
- Davis later challenged (1) breach of the plea agreement and (2) ACCA designation; the government asserted the appeal waiver barred the latter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement | Davis argues the ten-year max promise was breached. | Government contends no fixed sentence promise was made. | No breach; the ACCA dictates fifteen years regardless of breach. |
| Whether the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable | Davis asserts misadvice made waiver involuntary. | Government contends waiver survives despite misstatement. | Waiver invalid; Davis did not knowingly waive appeal of a fifteen-year sentence. |
| Whether Davis qualifies as an armed career criminal | Challenges that WV 2000 and 1993 convictions do not qualify. | ACCA enhancement applies based on three predicate offenses. | Affirmed as valid; three predicates, including residual-qualifying conduct, support ACCA. |
| Whether 2000 WV attempted breaking and entering constitutes a violent felony | Aruges it is not generic burglary; therefore not a predicate. | Even if not generic burglary, it falls under ACCA residual clause. | Harmless error for generic burglary; still qualifies under residual provision. |
| Whether the 1993 burglary convictions are separate offenses | Concurred sentences were concurrent and related to substance abuse; could count as one. | Convictions occurred on separate occasions in different states. | Count as separate offenses; satisfy ACCA multiplicity rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (plea promises must be fulfilled)
- United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640 (4th Cir.2009) (promises in plea agreements governably bound to inducement)
- United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850 (4th Cir.2005) (statutory range cannot be exceeded by district court)
- United States v. McQueen, 108 F.3d 64 (4th Cir.1997) (plain error standard in plea-breach claims)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (definitional framework for generic burglary under ACCA)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (modified categorical approach to prior offenses)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (attempted burglary can satisfy residual violent-felony predicate)
- United States v. Williams, 198 F.3d 988 (7th Cir.1999) (treatment of misstatements in plea agreements)