United States v. Willie McCloud, 818 F.3d 591

Background

Willie McCloud pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
McCloud had three prior armed-robbery convictions; the Government sought ACCA treatment (mandatory 15-year minimum) under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) claiming the priors were committed "on occasions different from one another."
The district court applied the ACCA and imposed a 235-month sentence (above the Government’s request). McCloud appealed.
Governing evidentiary constraint: to prove ACCA predicates occurred on separate occasions the Government must show by a preponderance of the evidence using only Shepard-approved documents (statute, charging papers, plea colloquy, explicit trial-judge factual findings, and undisputed PSI facts).
The available Shepard materials were charging documents (three case numbers listing different victims/items/co-defendants), the plea colloquy transcript, and certain undisputed PSI paragraphs; arrest affidavits and police reports were not Shepard-approved.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded the Government failed to prove the priors were temporally distinct, vacated the ACCA enhancement, and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McCloud)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the Government proved the three prior robberies "on occasions different from one another" under ACCA	Shepard-authorized materials do not show time/location or meaningful opportunity to desist; at best show two episodes	Charging documents, plea colloquy, and undisputed PSI facts (different victims, items, case numbers, co-defendants, vehicle) make it more likely than not the robberies were separate	Reverse: Government did not meet its burden; priors not proven temporally distinct under ACCA
Whether charging documents showing different victims/items/case numbers/co-defendants constitute "reliable and specific evidence" of separateness	Such facts do not establish temporal or spatial breaks; could reflect simultaneous robberies	Different victims/items/case numbers/co-defendants plausibly indicate separate events	Charging documents insufficient without time/location or other Shepard evidence
Whether plea colloquy supplied reliable evidence of three separate occasions	Colloquy is sparse and identifies location for only one robbery; does not show other robberies occurred at different times/places	Colloquy references (judge’s comments, prosecutor’s remarks) support inference of multiple occasions	Plea colloquy at most supports two offenses; not adequate to prove three separate episodes
Whether PSI paragraphs incorporating arrest affidavits could be used when defendant objected	Objections to PSI paragraphs that rely on non-Shepard sources are sufficiently specific; disputed paragraphs cannot be used unless proven by Govt	Where defendant failed to object (paragraph 29) those facts are undisputed and may be used	Govt may rely on paragraph it did not challenge (29) but not on paragraphs 27, 28, 30; even paragraph 29 did not prove three separate robberies

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2012) (Government must prove separateness by preponderance using reliable, specific evidence)
United States v. Sneed, 600 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (police reports/arrest affidavits not Shepard-approved for proving ACCA separateness)
United States v. Weeks, 711 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (ACCA predicates must be successive/temporally distinct)
United States v. Lee, 208 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2000) (separateness requires meaningful opportunity to desist; distinct aggressions)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits sources courts can consult to determine nature of prior convictions)
United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2006) (PSI objections must be specific; undisputed PSI facts may be used)
United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 676 F.3d 1017 (11th Cir. 2012) (arrest affidavits lack Shepard’s indicia of reliability)