United States v. Willoughby, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18482

Willoughby pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
The PSR recommended armed career criminal designation under the ACCA based on two Missouri convictions from a near-simultaneous drug deal.
Willoughby objected, arguing the two drug offenses were not distinct ‘occasions’ under § 924(e)(1).
The district court designated him an armed career criminal and imposed the ACCA mandatory minimum of 15 years.
On appeal, the court must decide whether the two sales to a confidential informant and to Officer McPhail constitute separate ACCA predicate offenses.
The court holds the two offenses were a continuous course of conduct, not separate occasions, and reverses for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two drug sales were separate ACCA predicates	Willoughby contends they were not separate occasions.	Government argues there were two separate offenses due to different buyers and amounts.	Two sales were not separate; ACCA predicate offenses were not distinct.

United States v. Davidson, 527 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2010) (discusses temporally remote predicate offenses and ACCA separation)
United States v. Davidson, 551 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2008) (Davidson II; clarifies ACCA outcomes post Begay)
United States v. Deroo, 304 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2002) (factors for separate offenses include time, distance, lack of continuity)
United States v. Hamell, 3 F.3d 1187 (8th Cir. 1993) (two assaults minutes apart can be separate if distinct in aggressions)
United States v. Van, 543 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2008) (multiple drug transactions on separate days can be separate offenses)
United States v. Ross, 569 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2009) (criminal episodes underlying convictions trigger ACCA, not timing of convictions)
United States v. Keith, 638 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizes ACCA predicates may be based on separate underlying episodes)