United States v. Wurie
867 F.3d 28
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Brima Wurie was convicted of distributing cocaine base and had multiple prior Massachusetts convictions including two assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (ABDW) convictions, resisting arrest, larceny from the person, and assault and battery on a police officer.
- At sentencing the district court treated Wurie as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on at least two prior "crimes of violence," producing a Guidelines range and a downward-variant sentence of 168 months.
- Wurie initially argued the Guidelines' residual clause (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)) was unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States (2015), but Beckles v. United States (2017) foreclosed due-process vagueness challenges to the advisory Guidelines.
- The government conceded post-Johnson that the residual clause was vague but argued Wurie’s ABDW convictions qualified under the force clause (§ 4B1.2(a)(1)); after Beckles the court relied on existing precedent treating ABDW as a crime of violence under the residual clause.
- Wurie alternatively requested remand for resentencing under Amendment 798 (which removed the residual clause), but Amendment 798 was not made retroactive and remand would require complex fact-specific Shepard document analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wurie’s prior ABDW convictions qualify as "crimes of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (residual clause) | ABDW has been treated as a crime of violence under prior First Circuit precedent; thus Wurie is a career offender | Johnson II undermines the residual clause; even post-Beckles, Johnson II’s reasoning requires reexamination of particular applications | Court: Followed circuit precedent (Glover/Hart). ABDW qualifies under the Guidelines’ residual clause; Beckles bars Johnson vagueness challenge to advisory Guidelines |
| Whether Johnson v. United States (2015) requires this court to overrule prior First Circuit decisions (law-of-the-circuit) | Johnson II shows residual clause is ambiguous and casts doubt on "ordinary case" analysis, justifying reconsideration | Beckles distinguishes the ACCA and the advisory Guidelines; no controlling Supreme Court or en banc authority undermines Glover | Court: Law-of-the-circuit binds; Johnson II does not supply a sound reason to depart from precedent; declined to revisit Glover |
| Whether remand for resentencing is warranted in light of Amendment 798 (eliminating the residual clause) | Sentencing Commission’s amendment signals changed policy; discretion to remand (Godin/Ahrendt) | Amendment 798 is non-retroactive and remand would require complex, uncertain fact-specific inquiry (divisible statutes, Shepard documents) | Court: Declined to remand; unlike Godin/Ahrendt, application of Amendment 798 here would be complex and discretionary; no prudential basis to remand |
| Whether rule of lenity or other doctrines require revisiting prior holdings that ABDW is a crime of violence | Lenity and post-Johnson concerns support revisiting earlier decisions | Lenity does not override binding circuit precedent; Beckles limits Johnson’s reach to ACCA | Court: Rejected lenity-based reopening; adhered to precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Glover, 558 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2009) (held Massachusetts ABDW is a crime of violence under the Guidelines’ residual clause)
- United States v. Hart, 674 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2012) (affirmed ABDW as an ACCA residual-clause predicate in ordinary-case analysis)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause unconstitutional for vagueness)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Johnson does not apply to advisory Guidelines; no due-process vagueness challenge to § 4B1.2)
- United States v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2017) (applied Glover post-Beckles; declined to accept government concessions that residual clause was void)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (articulated "ordinary case" approach to residual-clause analysis)
- United States v. Godin, 522 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2008) (remand for district court consideration after non-retroactive Guidelines amendment was issued)
- United States v. Matos, 611 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2010) (declined remand where application of later amendment was unclear and would be complex)