United States v. William Libby, Jr.
880 F.3d 1011
8th Cir.2018Background
- Defendant William Ike Libby, Jr. pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); district court sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to the 15-year mandatory minimum.
- The ACCA enhancement was based on three prior convictions; Libby conceded two but challenged treating his October 1997 first-degree aggravated robbery (Minn. Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1) as a "violent felony."
- Minnesota first-degree aggravated robbery requires commission of simple robbery while armed or while inflicting bodily harm; simple robbery (Minn. Stat. § 609.24) requires taking with knowledge by use or threatened imminent use of force to overcome resistance or compel acquiescence.
- The Eighth Circuit employed the categorical approach to ask whether the elements of the Minnesota statute necessarily include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of "physical force" (i.e., violent force capable of causing pain or injury).
- The court concluded Minnesota law requires proof that a defendant intentionally created in the victim’s mind an understanding that force would be immediately used to overcome resistance—i.e., a threat of violent force—and therefore the conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Libby’s 1997 conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609.245(1) is a "violent felony" under the ACCA | Libby: the statute can be applied to threats or means that do not rise to the level of violent force, so it is not categorically a violent felony | Government: Minnesota simple robbery necessarily involves threatened or imminent use of force sufficient to constitute violent force under ACCA | The court held Minn. Stat. § 609.24 (simple robbery) and thus § 609.245(1) require threatening the imminent use of force to overcome resistance, qualifying as a "violent felony" under the ACCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defines "physical force" as violent force capable of causing pain or injury)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (explains categorical and modified categorical approaches)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (realistic probability standard for state statute covering non-predicate conduct)
- United States v. Shockley, 816 F.3d 1058 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review of ACCA predicate convictions)
- United States v. Schaffer, 818 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2016) (clarifies "intentional creation" of threat and violent-force analysis)
- United States v. Eason, 829 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2016) (distinguished: analyzed Arkansas statute whose threat language was broader than Minnesota's)