Case ID: f-appx_490/html/0832-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adonis Adolph DORMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-3410.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 15, 2012.
    Filed: Oct. 31, 2012.
    
      Lisa D. Kirkpatrick, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Paul, MN, Andrew Robert Winter, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Reynaldo A. Aligada, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, Defendant-Appellant.
    Adonis Adolph Dorman, Anoka, MN, pro se.
    Before BYE, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   [Unpublished]

PER CURIAM.

Adonis Dorman appeals the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Due to his criminal history, the district court determined that Dorman qualified for sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and Dorman challenges two rulings related to this determination. However, we reject Dorman’s argument that his prior Minnesota conviction for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct is not a predicate violent felony under the ACCA. See United States v. Seudder, 648 F.3d 630, 633-34 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that a conviction under a substantially similar Indiana child molestation statute was categorically a violent felony). Similarly, his argument that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague is foreclosed both by Supreme Court precedent and by our court’s precedent. See James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 210 n. 6, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007) (noting that the Court was “not persuaded” by Justice Scalia’s dissenting position that the residual provision of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Childs, 403 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir.2005) (rejecting defendant’s vagueness argument). Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
     
      
      . Minn.Stat. Ann. § 609.345.