Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02249/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02249-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert E. Lillard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2249

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Robert E. Lillard, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2004

Filed: November 24, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, LAY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Lillard was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). During sentencing, the Government alleged that

Lillard was eligible for a sentencing enhancement pursuant to the Armed Career

Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The Government alleged that Lillard

would be required to serve at least fifteen years in prison because he had previously

been convicted of three “violent felonies” -- attempted robbery, robbery, and

possession of a short shotgun. 

Appellate Case: 04-2249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2004 Entry ID: 1837827 
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska, presiding. 

-2-

The district court1

 found that each of Lillard’s three prior convictions

constituted a “violent felony” under § 924(e) and sentenced him to 188 months

imprisonment. On appeal, Lillard argues that possession of a short shotgun is not a

“violent felony” under § 924(e). He also argues that the district court erred when it

found that his prior robbery convictions were separate and distinct criminal episodes

for the purposes of § 924(e). Because his prior robbery convictions were

consolidated for trial and sentencing in state court, Lillard argues that his two

convictions for robbery should be considered a single criminal episode. 

This court has found that possession of a short shotgun constitutes a “crime of

violence” under § 4.B.1.2(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. United

States v. Allegree, 175 F.3d 648, 651 (8th Cir. 1999). Although § 924(e) uses the

term “violent felony” rather than “crime of violence,” the definitions of these terms

are identical: an offense “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”

that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to

another.” See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii); U.S.S.G. § 4.B.1.2(a)(2). In Allegree, we

found that “[p]ossession of a sawed-off shotgun qualifies under this definition

because such weapons are inherently dangerous and lack usefulness except for violent

and criminal purposes.” Allegree, 175 F.3d at 651. We find that the reasoning of

Allegree applies equally to this case, and hold that possession of a short shotgun is

a “violent felony” under § 924(e). 

Lillard also argues that his two prior robbery convictions constituted a single

criminal episode. Although Lillard was sentenced on the same day for two robbery

convictions, the two robberies were committed more than one month apart and

involved different victims. We have held that “§ 924(e) specifically notes that it is

the occurrence of the criminal activity, not the conviction, that dictates the

Appellate Case: 04-2249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2004 Entry ID: 1837827 
-3-

enhancement decision.” United States v. Speakman, 330 F.3d 1080, 1083 (8th Cir.

2003). Lillard’s robbery convictions are not part of a single criminal episode and

were properly considered separate criminal convictions under § 924(e). See United

States v. Gray, 152 F.3d 816, 821 (8th Cir. 1998) (“The two transactions were distinct

in time, occurring on separate days, and required separate planning and execution by

[the defendants].”). 

We affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2249 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/24/2004 Entry ID: 1837827