Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03033/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Lamar Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued May 24, 2016

Decided September 6, 2016

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15-3033

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KEVIN LAMAR SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 14-CR-30034

Michael J. Reagan,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

On February 20, 2015, Kevin Lamar Smith pled guilty to being a felon in 

possession of a weapon. He and the government disagreed as to whether he had three 

prior convictions that met the criteria for triggering an enhanced sentence under the 

Federal Armed Career Criminal Act. Under the Act, a court must impose a sentence of 

fifteen years on any defendant who is a felon in possession of a weapon, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and has three or more previous convictions for a “violent felony” or a 

“serious drug offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Smith contends that one of his prior 

convictions, for burglary under Missouri law, does not qualify as a violent felony under 

the Act. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 15-3033 Document: 40 Filed: 09/06/2016 Pages: 2
No. 15-3033 Page 2

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Mathis v. United States, 

136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), which clarified the manner in which a sentencing court determines 

whether a defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as a violent felony for purposes of the 

enhanced sentence. In light of Mathis, the government now concedes that it is unable to 

demonstrate that Smith’s conviction for second-degree Missouri Burglary qualifies as a 

predicate felony under the Act. We therefore VACATE Smith’s sentence and REMAND 

for re-sentencing. 

Case: 15-3033 Document: 40 Filed: 09/06/2016 Pages: 2