United States v. Wendell Brown

795 F.3d 924, 2015 WL 4666284
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 7, 2015
Docket13-1590
StatusPublished

This text of 795 F.3d 924 (United States v. Wendell Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Wendell Brown, 795 F.3d 924, 2015 WL 4666284 (8th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This court previously affirmed Wendell Terrell Brown’s sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See United States v. Brown, 734 F.3d 824 (8th Cir.2013). The Supreme *925 Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court vacates Brown’s sentence and remands.

Brown pled guilty to possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court sentenced him as an armed career criminal to 180 months’ imprisonment. See § 924(e)(1) (mandatory minimum of 180 months if a felon in possession of a firearm has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses). At sentencing, it found Brown had three predicate convictions, including possession of a short-barreled shotgun. This court affirmed, agreeing that the shotgun conviction was a violent felony under the ACCA’s “residual clause.” See § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (crime is a violent felony if it “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”).

In Johnson, the Supreme Court struck down the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. See Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2556-57 (noting vagueness in criminal statutes is prohibited by due process). In light of Johnson, Brown’s shotgun conviction is not a violent felony under the ACCA. Thus, the district court erred by sentencing him as an armed career criminal based on only two qualifying convictions.

The judgment is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Wendell Brown
734 F.3d 824 (Eighth Circuit, 2013)
Johnson v. United States
576 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
795 F.3d 924, 2015 WL 4666284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wendell-brown-ca8-2015.