Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03879/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03879-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ivan Excel Mason
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3879

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Ivan Excel Mason, *

*

Appellee. *

__________

Submitted: March 13, 2006

Filed: March 21, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

The government appeals the district court’s decision not to sentence Ivan Excel

Mason (Mason) as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act

(ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on Mason’s ten prior Missouri state drug offense

convictions comprising seven separate drug sale events over nineteen days in October

1999. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 30, 2005, Mason pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Before the events

giving rise to Mason’s recent federal convictions, on June 12, 2000, Mason was

Appellate Case: 05-3879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2006 Entry ID: 2023174
1

Mason’s prior drug offenses included sales on October 7, 11, 13, 15, 19, 22,

and 25, 1999, at four separate locations in St. Louis County, Missouri.

-2-

convicted in Missouri state court of ten counts of distribution of a controlled

substance, in violation of Missouri Revised Statutes sections 195.211 and 558.011.

Mason’s ten counts of distributing drugs involved sales of cocaine base or heroin at

four different locations on seven different dates, all to the same undercover officer.1

At sentencing, the government sought to have Mason sentenced as an armed

career criminal under the ACCA based on his prior drug offense convictions. Mason

objected, and the district court refused to sentence him under the ACCA, viewing

Mason’s prior crimes as one conviction, thus not meeting the threshold three

convictions as required by the ACCA. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The district court

then sentenced Mason to 42 months’ imprisonment, well below the fifteen-year

minimum mandated under the ACCA. See id.

II. DISCUSSION

We review de novo whether a prior conviction is a serious drug offense for the

purpose of sentencing under the ACCA. United States v. Brown, 408 F.3d 1016, 1017

(8th Cir. 2005).

The ACCA provides, in part:

In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and

has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section

922(g)(1) of this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or

both, committed on occasions different from one another, such person

shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years,

and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not

Appellate Case: 05-3879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2006 Entry ID: 2023174
-3-

suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person

with respect to the conviction under section 922(g).

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (emphasis added). The language of section 924(e)(1) is clear

and mandatory.

We repeatedly have held criminal episodes underlying convictions trigger

application of the ACCA, not the date of the convictions or the number of trials or

pleas resulting in those convictions. See United States v. Turner, 431 F.3d 332, 337-

38 (8th Cir. 2005) (deciding two robberies in different cities with different victims

three days apart were distinct criminal episodes for section 924(e)(1); United States

v. Speakman, 330 F.3d 1080, 1081-83 (8th Cir. 2003) (finding three drug sales made

to the same undercover officer on different days and times within a one-month period,

and consolidated for sentencing, were still separate and distinct criminal episodes

under § 924(e)); United States v. Long, 320 F.3d 795, 801-02 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding

defendant’s guilty plea to three counts involving three separate drug deliveries on

separate days constituted three convictions for ACCA purposes regardless that

defendant pled guilty in a single proceeding and was sentenced to a single ten-year

sentence for all three deliveries). See also United States v. Cardenas, 217 F.3d 491,

491-92 (7th Cir. 2000) (concluding two sales of crack cocaine made a half a block

apart and separated by 45 minutes, and a third sale made the next day, all to the same

people, were each separate and distinct criminal episodes constituting three previous

convictions under section 924(e)(1)). Our decision in United States v. McDile, 914

F.2d 1059, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam), is particularly on point. In that case,

McDile pled guilty to two counts of selling a controlled substance, occurring on

separate dates, and pled guilty in another case to two counts of selling a controlled

substance, again occurring on separate dates. We disagreed with McDile’s contention

that his four convictions, occurring at the same time in state court, were a single

criminal episode for the purposes of the ACCA. We held, because the “drug sales

were at different times, spread over a two-month period and were made to two

Appellate Case: 05-3879 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/21/2006 Entry ID: 2023174
-4-

different individuals,” McDile had four prior convictions for purposes of the ACCA.

Id. at 1061.

McDile’s reasoning applies here. Mason’s drug sales occurred at different

times and locations, and were spread over approximately a three-week period. It is

true McDile made sales to two individuals while Mason’s ten sales all were made to

the same undercover officer. The ACCA speaks, however, to drug offenses

committed on different “occasions,” not to offenses committed with different

individuals. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). See Speakman, 330 F.3d at 1082. We do not

consider the fact Mason made repeated sales to the same customer a relevant factor

in determining whether the ACCA applies.

Under Missouri law, Mason’s prior drug offense convictions were “serious drug

offenses” for purposes of the ACCA. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) (defining

“serious drug offense” as “an offense under State law, involving manufacturing,

distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled

substance . . . for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is

prescribed by law”); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 195.211, 558.011.1(2) (subjecting those

convicted of the Class B felony of distributing a controlled substance to a maximum

penalty of fifteen years’ imprisonment). Mason’s ten prior convictions involved seven

separate criminal episodes. See Speakman, 330 F.3d at 1082-83; McDile, 914 F.2d

at 1060-61. Mason therefore should have been sentenced as a career offender under

the ACCA, and his 42-month sentence is illegal.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the district court’s 42-month sentence for Mason is

reversed, and we remand for resentencing in accordance with the ACCA and this

opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3879 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/21/2006 Entry ID: 2023174