United States v. Seth RonningUnited States v. Seth Ronning
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
Seth Ronning pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court1 found the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) applicable in Ronning‘s case and sentenced Ronning to 180 months imprisonment.
Ronning appeals his sentence. Having jurisdiction under
Ronning, a Native American, pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
At sentencing, the district court calculated Ronning‘s United States Sentencing
On appeal, Ronning contends that the district court erroneously sentenced him as an armed career criminal because (1) the ACCA violates his equal protection rights because it is applied unequally and has a disparate impact on non-white defendants and juveniles; and (2) his Wisconsin conviction does not qualify as an ACCA predicate conviction because the Wisconsin armed robbery statute can be satisfied without the use of force and the conduct underlying the conviction was part of a single course of conduct concurrent with the conduct underlying his 2010 Carlton County, Minnesota conviction. Ronning further contends that the district court erred in not crediting his federal sentence with time served in state custody as a result of a prior state court revocation.
Ronning first argues that it was error to sentence him under the ACCA because the ACCA violates his equal protection rights rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 498-99 (1954). Specifically, he contends that the ACCA has a disparate impact on non-white defendants like him, asserting that statistically, far more non-white than white defendants are sentenced under the ACCA. He further argues that defendants with juvenile convictions and adjudications are not treated equally under the ACCA. “We review federal constitutional questions de novo.” United States v. Jones, 574 F.3d 546, 553 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (considering Eighth Amendment challenge to ACCA). Ronning‘s constitutional claims are without merit. The Supreme Court has made clear that disparate impact alone is insufficient to show an equal protection violation; instead, proof of discriminatory intent or purpose is required. Pers. Adm‘r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272 (1979); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976); City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found., 538 U.S. 188, 194 (2003); see also United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 841 (8th Cir. 1996) (“[D]isparate impact is not sufficient to show a constitutional violation. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated absent invidious or discriminatory purpose.” (citations omitted)). Ronning has not presented any proof of a discriminatory intent or purpose in the enactment of the ACCA or its application to his case either before the district court or this Court. Accordingly, his claim fails. Nevertheless,
Ronning asks that we disregard the requirement that he present evidence of a discriminatory intent or purpose, arguing that this “standard is outdated and ill-suited to combat systemic racism and pervasive white supremacist institutions in the criminal justice system.” Appellant Br. 12. We reject this invitation as
As to Ronning‘s claim regarding differing treatment of juvenile convictions, Ronning‘s predicate convictions do not include any “acts of juvenile delinquency” under the ACCA. Ronning was certified as an adult in his Carlton County, Minnesota prosecution, and his St. Louis County, Minnesota convictions were entered pursuant to Minnesota‘s Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ) designation.
If an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution results in a guilty plea or finding of guilt, the court shall: (1) impose one or more juvenile dispositions under section 260B.198; and (2) impose an adult criminal sentence, the execution of which shall be stayed on the condition that the offender not violate the provisions of the disposition order and not commit a new offense.
Next, Ronning contends that his Wisconsin robbery conviction does not qualify as an ACCA predicate offense. We review de novo the district court‘s determination that a prior conviction constitutes a predicate offense under the ACCA. United States v. Boaz, 558 F.3d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 2009).
The ACCA imposes a mandatory minimum fifteen-year sentence if a defendant violates
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and thus is a felon in possession of a firearm, “and has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony.”18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) . A “violent felony” is “any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” that also satisfies the other statutory requirements.18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) . Generally, for a conviction to be a “violent felony” under the ACCA, it must be an adult conviction.Id. Acts of juvenile delinquency are violent felonies only if they involve the use or possession of a firearm, knife, or destructive device, which would be punishable by a term exceeding one year if committed by an adult, and otherwise meet § 934(e)‘s definition of violent felony.Id.
Nash, 627 F.3d at 695 (alteration in original). Ronning asserts his Wisconsin conviction is not a predicate offense because Wisconsin‘s armed robbery statute can be violated without the use of a firearm, knife, or destructive device. He further asserts that his Wisconsin conviction was part of a single course of conduct with that conduct upon which his Douglas County, Minnesota aggravated robbery conviction was based and that they should be treated as one conviction. However, even if we agreed with Ronning‘s contentions, the ACCA would still apply to his case. Even without counting the Wisconsin conviction, Ronning is left with four ACCA qualifying Minnesota convictions and only three predicate
Ronning next contends that the district court erred by failing to give him credit for time served on a prior state court conviction. According to the PSR, the post-imprisonment term of supervision imposed upon Ronning by the district court of Douglas County, Wisconsin, after he was convicted of armed robbery on September 13, 2010, was revoked on October 23, 2018, after which he served a
sentence of imprisonment of three years and three days expiring on September 30, 2020. Ronning was sentenced in this case on August 18, 2020. Relying on
Finally, Ronning argues that the government “purposely caused an undue delay in charging Ronning so that he would serve more time in his state case.” Appellant Br. 42. Ronning did not present this argument to the district court, and thus we review only for only plain error. See
We affirm the judgment of the district court.