The H on orable Ru ben C ast il lo, Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t Court  f or the Northe rnDis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2507 J EFFRE Y D. K I R KL AND , Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:09- CV-335

—Jo n E . D eG uil io, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 20, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 24, 2012

Befo re F L AUM and R OV NER, C ircu it Judges , a nd C AST IL LO, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  C A STILLO, D i s t r i ctJudg e . J eff r eyKi r k l an d was c o nvi ct ed o funl awfulpossessi o n o fa fi r ea r m b y a fel o n, a nd base d on a fi nd i ng tha t he had fi ve “vi ol ent fel ony” co nv i ct i o ns , i nc l udi ngt wo dr unkdr i vingo ffen se s, the2 N o. 11

- 2507

Thi s opi nion h as bee n c i rc ul at ed t o the ful l c our tpur s uan t 1 to C ircu it R u le 40 (e)
. N o ju d g e in ac tiv e serv i c e r e q u ested to hear this cas e e n ba nc . dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced hi m as an a rm ed car eercr i m i nal pu r s ua ntt o the Ar med Ca r e e r Cr i mi na l Ac t, 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 24 ( e) ( “ACCA ”)
. Af te r the S upr eme Co ur t det er m i ne d tha t dr unkdr i vingi s no t a “ viol en t fel o ny ” as the te rm is de fin ed in th e A C C A , B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , 553 U
. S. 137, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L .E d
. 2d 490 (2008), K i rk l and fi l ed a peti ti on f orr el i efunder 28 U
. S. C. § 2 255. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied K irk lan d ’s p e t itio n . On ap p ea l, w e v acat ed that j ud gm ent a nd r em anded th e c ase w i th dir ecti ons f orthe dist ri ct c ourtto deter m i ne wh ether Ki r k l an d s ti l l q ual i fi ed as a c ar ee r c r i m i na l abs en t th e two c o nv ic ti o ns f o r dr unkdr i ving . On r emand, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that an enha n c em ent o fKir kl and’s sente nce und er the A CC A w as stil l appro pri ate ba se d o n h is th re e r emai ni ngc o nv i ct i o ns f o r v i o l en t f el oni es. Ki r k l a n d a p p e a l s o n t wo g r o u n d s : fi r s t, th a tthe d istri ct cou rt erred in d eterm ining t h a t tw o of K irkl an d ’s “vi o l en t f el o ny ” co nv i ct i o ns tha t ar o se fr o m e ve nt s o n a si ngl e day const i tu te d se parat e pr edi cate o ffenses under th e A C C A , a n d s e c o n d , th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in n otad m itt in g K irk lan d ’s t es tim on y a n d a f f i d av it a t h is re sente nci ng hea ri ng. W e r eve rs e. 1N o. 11

- 2507 3 I . B AC KGR OUND O n A u gu st 15, 20 06, a j ury f ound K i rk l and gui l ty of unlawful p oss ess i on o fa fi re ar m by a fel on i n vi ol ati on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922(g)( 1). A t s e n t en cing, the d istri ct cou rt adopted t he fi nd i ngs o fthe prese ntence i nvest i gat i on r e p o r t( “ P S R ” ) , w h i c h i n d i c a t e d th a tK i r k l a n d ’ s c r i mi nal hi sto ryi ncl ud ed five “vi ol ent fel ony” co nvi cti ons: a 1 984 convi cti on f orb u rg lar y; a 1985 co nvi cti on f or burgl ar y; a 1985 co nvi cti on f orag gravated robber y; a 2 0 0 1 c o nv i c ti on f o r o pe r a t i ngwh i l e i nt o xi c a t e d; a nd a 2003 co nvi cti on for o perat i ng wh i l e intoxi cate d. Based on the PS R’s fi nd i ngs, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that K i rk l and quali fi ed as an ar m ed car eercr i m i nal under the ACCA, whi c h i nc r e a s e s the pe na l t y f o r po s s e s s i on o f a fi re ar m by a fel on wh en a d efe n dant has three p re d ica te co n vic tio n s fo r “v iole n t fe lon [ies ]” a s d efin ed in th e A C C A tha t wer e “c o m m i tt ed o n o cc as i o ns di ffer en t fro m o ne ano ther
. ” 1 8 U.S
. C. § 9 24( e) ( 1)
. The di str i ct cour t s entence d K i rk lan d to the m andator y fi ftee n-y ear mi n i mu m u n d e r th e AC C A. I n 2 00 8, the S upr eme Co ur t he l d i n Bega y th atthe f el ony off ense ofdri vi ng un d er t he i nfl uence i s no t a “vi ol en tfe l o ny ” wi thin the me a ningo fthe ACCA. 5 53 U. S
. a t1 4 8 , 1 2 8 S
. Ct
. 1 5 8 1
. Ki r k l a nd s ub s e qu e nt l y fi l e d a § 22 55 pe titi o n c ha l l en g i nghi s se nt en ce , whi chthe distric t co urt denie d. On app eal, we re m anded the case to the di str i ct c ourtf orfurtherco nsi d er at i on i n l i ght o f o urho l di ngi n Welch v. U nited Sta tes , 604 F. 3d 408 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10) , that Bega yappli es re tr oac ti vel y. On rem and, the di str i ct c ourtco nsi dered wh ether K i rk l and quali fi ed as an ar m ed car eercrim i nal bas ed on4 N o. 11

- 2507

Sp ecifically, the “C 85-10 4” inform atio n state s that: 2 J ohn ny H en ry Y ea rl ey , J eff re y Dea n Ki rk l and & Kar enSu e Fos t eri n sa i d W as hi ngt on County, St at e ofA rk ans as , onor aboutthe 6th d ay ofFe brua ry , 19 85 , di d unl awful l y, felonio u sly an d w ith th e p u rp ose o f com m itting an offen se (co n tin u ed ...) hi s th r ee r emai ni ngfel ony c o nv i ct i o ns

— th e 1984 bu rgl ar y c onvi cti on a nd the 1985 burg l ar y a nd ag gr av at ed ro bber y c onvi cti ons. The go ver nm ent m ai ntai ned that Ki r k l an d’ s enha nced se nt en ce was v al i d b ec au se the thre e r em ai ni ng co n vi cti ons w er e v i ol ent fel oni es as defined by the A CC A
. Kir kl and con c ed ed that al l thr ee co nv i ct i o ns wer e vi o l en t fel o ni es , b uta r g ued tha t th e 1985 co nvicti ons coul d not s er ve as separ ate pre dica te f e l o n i e s u nd e r th e A C C A b e c a u s e th e y w e r e n o tc o mm i tte d on “o ccasi ons differ ent fro m o ne a n ot her, ” a s re q u ire d by § 92 4(e )(1)
. The dis tr i ct c ourtco nd ucted a re sent en ci ng hea ri ng to re sol ve thi s di sputed i ssue. A t the hear i ng, the parti es su bmi tt ed th e ch ar g i ngdo cument s, th e j udg m en ts , a nd th e pl ea que st i o nna i r es fr o m the 1 98 5 co nv i ct i o ns . The tw o cha rging d ocu m en ts ind icate th at both the bu rglary an d the r o bb er y o cc ur r ed o n F eb r ua r y 6 , 1 98 5. The firs t docum ent, an info rm ati on f orcause num ber“C 85

- 104, ” char ges Kir kl and, J ohnny H enryY ear l ey, and K ar en Sue Fos terwith b urgl ar y a n d s econd degr ee batt er y. The i nfo rm ati on sta tes that K i rk l and, Yearl ey, and F os ter c o mm i t t e d the b ur g l a r y i n the h om e ofCh a r l e s Gab b a r d, and that Gab b ar d w as the v i cti m o fthe batt er y. I t doe s 2N o. 11

- 2507 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 p u nish ab le b y im p rison m en t, en ter or rem ain in the resid e nc e of C ha rles G ab b ard , an occu p iab le struc tu re in v io la tio n o f A rk . St a ts. A n n . § 4 1 -2 0 0 2 ; an d , di d unl awful l y, f el oni ous l y and wi th the pur pos e ofc aus i ng phy si cal i njury t o another person, cause p h y si cal i njury to Charle s G abb ard, in viol ati on of A rk. S ta ts. Ann. § 41- 1602. T he “C 85-10 5" in form atio n state s that: 3 J ohn ny Henr y Y ea rl ey , J eff re y D ea n Ki rk l and & Kar enSu e Fos t eri n s ai d W as hi ngt on County, St at e of Arka ns as , onor aboutthe 6th day ofFe bruar y , 19 85 , di d unl awful l y, f el oni ous l y a nd w ith the pur pos e ofc om m i t t i ng a the ft, or re s i s t i ng a ppre he ns i on i m m edi at el y the re aft er, e m p loy or t hr e a t e n t o i mm e di a t e l y e mpl o y p h y s i c a l f o r c e u pon ano the r per s on, whi l e ar m ed with a deadl y wea pon, or re pre s en t at i on thathe was s o a rm ed, i n vi olat i on of A rk . St a ts. A n n . § 4 1 -2 1 0 2 ; an d , di d unl awful l y a nd with the pur pos e ofdep rivi ng the owner ofi t s pr ope rty, kno wingl y t ake or ex er c i s e una uthoriz e d c on tro l ov er ca sh an d p izz a, such b eing the p ro p erty ofDo m ino e’ s [ s i c ] Pi zz a, i n vi ol at i on ofArk. St at s . Ann. § 41- 2203. not provi de a t i m e f orthe offen se . The s eco nd i nfo rm at i o n, f o r c a u s e n u mb e r “ C 8 5

- 1 0 5 , ” c h a r g e s th e s a me thre e defendants w i th ag gr avat ed robber y a nd theft o f proper ty, and i nd i cate s that the defend an ts ro bbed an unnam ed i nd i vi du ala n d s tol e ca sh and piz za that w as proper ty of“Dom i noe’ s [ si c] Pi zza. ” The i nfo rm ati on 3 f o r c au se numbe r “ C 8 5- 105 ” do es no t i ndi ca te the tim e o r loc at ion of th e ro b b er y a n d th eft
.6 N o. 11

- 2507

I n f ac t, the p lea ques t i onn ai re s appe ar t o be c opi es ofthe 4 s am e doc um en twith o ne c au s e num ber s c ra t c he d outan d replac ed b y the other ca u se num ber. Both plea ques ti onnaires the r e f or e l i s ta l l f ou r o ff e ns es

— aggr ava t ed r obbe ry , the ftof pro per t y, bur gl ar y, an d bat t er y. The j ud gm ents and plea questi on n air es f orthe 1985 o ff e ns e s tha twe r e s ub mi t t e d t o the di s t r i c tc o ur tdo not provi de furtheri nfo rm ati on r ega rdi ng the o ffenses . The two j ud gm ents ar e i denti calexce pt f orthe cause num ber s, the cri m es l i ste d, and the s entenci ng i nfor m at i o n . T he tw o p l e a qu e s t i o n n a i r e s a r e a l s o th e s a me asi d e from the c au se numbe r s l i st ed atthe t o p o fthe p age. De sp ite the best eff orts of t he prob ation offi cer,

4 no a ddi t i o na l r e c o r ds f o r the 1 9 8 5 o ffe ns e s we r e l o c a t e d. A t the hearing , th e pa rties agreed that un d er Sh epa rd v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 54 4 U.S
. 13 , 12 5 S
. Ct. 12 54, 16 1 L. Ed
. 2d 20 5 ( 20 05 ) , the di st r i ctc o ur t co ul d o nl y c o ns i derthe charg i ng docum ents, the j ud gm ents, a nd the ple a questi o nna i r es fr o m the 1 985 c o nv i ct i o ns i n de te r m i ni ng w hetherKir kl and’s convi cti on s w er e f oro ffenses that o c c ur r e d o n di ff er ent o c c a s i o ns . Ba s e d o n thi s r e c o r d, th e g o ve r nm en t co nc eded thati t was po ss ibl e th atthe tw o of f enses occurr ed si m ul t a ne o us l y g i v e n that K i rk l and w as convi cted o fthe offenses with tw o codefen dan ts , a nd the r e was no i nf o rm ati o n r eg ar di ng th e t i m e o fe i th ero ffen se o r the l o ca ti o n o fthe r o bb ery to i ndi ca te o th er wi se . Nev er th el ess, the g o ve r nm en t ar gued th at the AC CA enhancem ent was appro pri ate because Kir kl and coul d not s how thatthe offenses o ccurr ed on the sa m e o ccasi on. Kir kl and, i n tu rn , a gr eedN o. 11

- 2507 7

The gove rn m en tal s o s ubm i t t ed a Depar t m en tofCor re c t i on 5 adm is si ons rec ord, bu t the dist ri ct court decli ned to co n si der i t
. The di s t ri c tcou rt als o de c l i ne d t o c ons i der por t i ons of the PS R th atwer e notbas ed o n S hepa rd -ap p ro v ed sou rces. that the a m bi gui ti es i n th e reco rd cr eat ed a s i tuati on i n w hi ch, at best, the dist ri ct c ourtwas l eft with “a guess ” a s t o w h a to c c u r r e d i fi to n l y c o n s i d e r e d S hep a rd

appro v e d do c ume nt s. H e a ccor dingl y o f f er ed an affi davi t and t est i m ony re gar ding the eve nts that led to th e 19 85 c o nv i ct i o ns i n a n effor t to s ho w tha t th e off enses o ccurr ed on the sa m e o ccasi on, ev en tho ugh he co nceded that s uch evi dence w as not conte m pla ted by Sh epa rd
. B efore dete rm inin g w he th er the bu rglary and robbery convi cti ons re sul ted fro m o ffenses thatwere com m i tte d on s epara te occa si ons, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that Sh epa rd pre cl ud ed it from cons id e r in g K irkl an d ’s affi d avit o r t estim ony . Th at left, as th e d istri ct cou rt 5 p ut i t, a “ f ac tu al l y s par se ” r ec o r d r el ev an t to de term i ni ng wh etherthe offenses were “co m m itt ed o n occ asi o ns di ff er en t f r o m o ne ano th er . ” I n pa r ti cul ar, the dist ri ct c ourtnot ed tha t the r eco rd l acke d i nfo rm ati on re gar ding the t i m i ng o fthe offenses and the l oca ti on of the robbery. Th e fact tha t tw o c o-de fend an ts w ere i nv o l ve d i n b o tho ffen se s fu rthe r c o m pl i ca te d the i nqui r y a s to the s eque nc e o fe ven ts
. Ul ti m at el y, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that “bas ed on the l i m i ted f acts avai l abl e f orr evi ew , ” Kir kl an d c ou ld not pr ove by a prepondera n ce o fthe evi dence thatthe offenses8 N o. 11

- 2507

occur re d on a si ngl e o ccasi on. A ccordi ngl y, the dist ri ct cou rt de ni ed Ki r k l an d’ s § 22 55 pe ti ti o n b ec au se the 1985 co nvi cti ons f orburg l ary an d ro bber y, co m bi ned w i th the undisputed 198 4 co nvict i on f orburg l ar y, ser ved as the necess ar y pr edi cate s f oran e nh an cem en t und er the ACCA
. I n a n a l te r na ti ve ho l di ng, the d istri ct cou rt cons id ered K irkl an d ’s testim ony and de termi ne d tha ti tdi d n o ta l t e r i t s c o nc l us i o n tha tthe ACCA enha nc ementwas war r an te d i n thi s ca se . F o l l o wi ng th e d is t r i c t c ou rt ’s g ra n tin g of a ce rt ifica te of ap p ea la b i l i t y, Ki r k l a nd a pp e a l e d.

I I . DI S C US S I ON K i rk l and chal len ges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s use o fhi s 1 985 c o nv i c t i o ns t o e nh a nc e h i s s e nt e nc e u nd e r the ACCA b e c a u s e h e c o n t e n d s th a t th e v i o l e n tfe l o n i e s w e r e c o mm i t t e d o n th e s a me o c c a s i o n . We r e v i e w d en o vo t he di st r i ctc o ur t’ s appl i ca ti o n o fthe ACCA t o Ki r kland ’s se n te n c e. U n i t ed S ta tes v. Fo ster, 65 2 F
. 3d 776, 79 2 ( 7th C i r. 20 11) ( ci ti ng U nite d State s v. Fife, 6 2 4 F
. 3 d 4 41, 445 (7t h Ci r. 20 10) )
. A ny f actualfi nd i ngs r el ate d to K i rk l and’s pri orco nvi cti ons, howe ver, ar e r evi ew ed f or c lea r er ro r. Id. ( ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. A lja ba ri, 62 6 F
. 3d 940, 950 (7th Cir. 2010)).

A. Sh e pa rdSource Restr i ct i on Befo re r eachi ng Kir kl and’s pri m ar y a rgum ent o n appeal, we fi rs t a dd re ss the pr el i m i naryi ssue ofwh ether th e ev i den ti ar y r es tr i ct i o ns s etf orth i n Sh epa rd v . U nitedN o. 11

- 2507 9 Sta tes apply to the “ differen t o ccasi on” i nquir y under § 9 24( e) ( 1) . W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthat Sh epa rd d oe s a p p ly, an d th ou gh w e h av e i n d i c at ed as m u c h in p rior op in ion s, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Ngo , 40 6 F.3 d 8 39, 84 3 n .1 (7t h C i r. 20 05 ), U nited Sta tes v. H un ter, 4 1 8 F e d. Appx. 4 90 , 4 94 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1) , we br i efl y e xpl ain o ur re as on in g i n an at te m p t t o c lar ify th is c on st an tly e v o l v i n ga n d “ n o ta l wa y s v e r y l o g i c a l ” a r e a o fth e l a w, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br owni ng, 436 F.3d 780 , 782 (7th C ir. 2006). T h e A C C A p ro vid es th at a n yo n e w h o h as “t h re e p re vio us co nv i ct i o ns . . . f o r a vi o l en t fel o ny o r a serious d r ug off ense, o r both, co m m itt ed on o ccasi ons differ ent fro m one anothe r” i s a n ar m ed car eercr i m i nal and subj ect to a fi ft e e n- y e a r ma nd a t o r y mi ni mum s e nt e nc e . 18 U. S
. C. § 92 4( e) ( 1)
. I n Ta ylo r v. U nited Sta tes , th e S u p r e me Cou r t addr es se d ho w a di str i ctc o ur t m ayde te r m i ne w hethera pri orco nvi cti on qual i fies as a “ vi ol ent fel ony” as de fi ne d u nd e r § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 )
. 4 9 5 U. S
. 5 7 5 , 1 1 0 S
. Ct. 21 43 , 1 09 L. Ed. 2d 60 7 ( 1990 ). The defen dan t i n Taylo r p lea d ed gu ilty t o p os se ss ion of a fire ar m by a felo n in vi ol ati on o f§ 922 (g)(1) , and the gov er nm ent s ought a se n te n c in g e n h an c em en t u n d er § 92 4(e ) ba se d on h is c rim in al h ist or y t h at inc lu d ed bu rg lar y c on vic tio n s. Id. at 578- 59, 11 0 S
. Ct. 21 43. The defendant a rg ued that a lt h ou gh “bu rglary” i s one of the “v iol en t fel on[ies]” i denti fi ed i n § 9 24(e)( 2) ( B), hi s pri orco nvi cti ons f or burgl ar y c oul d not be pre dica te offenses bec ause they did noti nvol ve conduct pres enti ng “a se ri ous pot enti al ri sk of ph ysi cali nj ury to anothe r” as r equi re d by10 N o. 11

- 2507

18 U .S. C
. § 92 4(e) pro v id es: 6 (1 ) In th e c a se o fa p e r s o n w h o v io la te s se ct io n 92 2 (g ) .
. . and has thre e previous c onv ic ti ons by any court
. . . for a violentfel ony or a s eri ous drug off ense , or both .
. . s uch p erso n sh all b e fined n o t m o r e tha n $ 25 ,000 a nd im p rison ed no t less tha n fifteen ye ars. ( 2) As us ed i n thi s s ubs ec t i on

— . . . ( B) the t er m “vi ol en tfel ony” m ea ns an y c ri m e puni s habl e by i m pri s onm en tfor a t er m exceedi ng o ne year . . . that

— ( i ) ha s anel em en tthe us e, at t em pt ed us e, or thr ea t en ed us e of phys i c al f or c e aga i ns tthe per s on ofan othe r; or (ii ) is b u r g lary , arso n, or exto rtion , inv olv es use ofex plosi ves, or otherw is e i nvo lves condu ct thatpr es en ts a s eri ous potenti al ri sk ofphy si cal inj ury to another
. § 92 4(e )(2) (B )(ii). Id. a t 57 9, 1 10 S
. Ct. 2 14 3. The Court 6 fi rst d eterm ined that the “ge ne ric” m ean ing of bu r g la ry w as th e prop er d efi nition of “burglary” u nd er § 924(e), m eani ng tha t i fa defe nd ant’ s pri or convi cti on i nvol ved a c r i m e w ith th e b as ic e lem en ts of “g en er ic b u rg lar y,” re gar d les s o fthe l abelo fthe convi cti on, the convi cti on c ou n ts as a p re d i c a t e o ffen se for p u rp os es of § 9 24 (e). Id
. at 599, 11 0 S
. Ct. 21 43. T he Cou rt nex t ad d ressed the q u e stion of how to det erm ine ifa defen d a nt ’s prior con viction for bu rglary qu ali fi es as a con v ic t io n for “gene ric burglary” w he re the s tat e s tatute under w hi ch the defe nd ant i s co nvi ctedN o. 11

- 2507 11

var i es fro m the “ge neri c defi ni ti on. ” Id. at59 9, 11 0 S
. Ct. 2143
. Th e Co ur t c o nc l ud e d tha t the pl a i n l a ngua g e o f th e A C C A , i ts legi slativ e history, an d prac tical consid erat ion s re q u ire “a form al c at eg or ica l a p p r oa c h ” t o t h is i nqui r y tha t per m i ts the t r i alc o ur t to l o o ko nl y to “ th e f ac t o fc o nv i ct i o n a nd the s ta tu to r y de fi ni ti o n o fthe pr i o r o ff en se ” an d “ no t to the f ac ts unde r l y i ngthe pri orco nvi cti on. ” Id. a t 60 0-0 2, 1 10 S
. Ct. 2 14 3. The Court ackno w l edged an excepti on i n case s in w h i ch the s tatutor y defi ni ti on o fan o ffense encom p asses conduct that w oul d quali fy as a “vi ol ent fel ony” and other c on d u c t t h at w ou ld n ot
. Id. at60 2. I n thi s “n ar ro w r ange o fc as es , ” the d istr i ctc o ur t ca n l o o kt o the c ha r g i ng docum ent a nd j ury i nstr ucti ons to deter m i ne i fthe defen dant w as “neces sar i l y” convi cted o fco nd uct that quali fi es as a “ vi ol ent fel ony. ” Id. I n U nite d State s v. H udspeth , a m aj ority of t h is cou rt he l d tha t th e so ur ce restri ct i o n o ut l i ne d i n Taylo rf o r the deter m i nati on of whether an o ffense quali fi es as a “vi ol ent fel ony” di d not a pp l y when decid ing whether m ult i ple o ff enses o ccurr ed on o ne o r m or e “ occa si ons. ” 4 2 F.3d 1 015, 1018 n
. 3 (7th C ir. 1994) ( e n b anc )
. The m aj or i ty reason ed that “[a]s a p ra c tical m atter, a district court f r e q u e n t l y mu s t l o o k b e y o n d th e c h a r g i n g p a p e r s an d j udg m en t o fc o nv i ct i o n f o r the se docum en ts a l o ne rarely provid e the district cou rt w ith th e d etailed inform at ion n ec es sa ry (i. e . , tim e, victim , l ocat ion ) to d eterm ine w he th e r m u lti p le offenses occu rred on one or m ore
‘ occa si ons. ’ ” Id. A c c o r d ingly, un d er H udspeth , a dist ri ct cour t co uld r el y o n docum ents such as p oli ce r epor ts th at w ere not p erm issible un d er Taylo rt o e xa m i ne the12 N o. 11

- 2507 f actualunderpinni ngs o fa defe nd ant’ s pri orco nvi ctio n s. Id. I n 200 5, the Supre m e Cour t r evi si ted the i ssue ofwh at m ater ia ls a sen ten cing cou rt m ay con side r i n d eterm i ni ng the nature of a defe nd ant’ s pri or fel ony c onvicti o ns f o r pur po se s o f§ 9 24 ( e) ( 1) i n Sh epa rd
. 54 4 U.S
. at16 , 125 S. Ct. 12 54
. Sh epa rd, l i ke Taylo r, i nv olved a prior burglary convicti o n in a state i n w hich the bu rglary st atut e co ve r ed a br o ade r r an g e o fc o nduc t tha n the “g en er i c bur g l ar y ” ne ede d fora n ACCA e nha nc ement as a “vi ol ent f el ony. ” The defe nd ant’ s burgl ar y c onvi cti on i n S hep a rd, however, r esul ted fro m a gui l ty ple a a nd not a j ury tr i al, and beca use there wer e n o j u ryi nstr ucti ons, the g ove rnm ent ur ged the di str i ct c ourtto co nsi der p o lic e rep orts an d com p lai nt ap p li cation s in de term i ni ng wh etherthe defe nd ant’s convi cti ons w er e f or “ge neri c bur gl ar i es. ” 544 U
. S. at 17- 18, 125 S. Ct. 12 54. The di st r i ctcou rt decl i ne d t o c o ns i derthi s ev i den ce , a nd di d no t appl y t he A CCA e nha nc ementb ec au se i t “fo und that the Gover nm ent had f ai l ed to car ryits bu rden to dem onst ra te that Shepar d had p l eaded to thr ee gener i c bur gl ar i es. ” Id. at18- 19, 12 5 S
. Ct. 12 54. The Fi rs t Cir cui t va c at ed th e s en te n c e a n d rem an d ed f or re se n te n c in g “[a]f te r ob se rv in g th at Sh ep ar d n ev er ‘s er iousl y di sp uted’ that he di d i n f act” co m m i t the act s described i n the pol i ce r epor ts and com pla i nt appli catio n s. Id. at 19, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (citation om itted ). The S upr eme Co ur t r ev er se d. Be ca us e th er e w as no re aso n “to ea se aw ay f ro m the Ta ylo r co nclusion, ” th e Co ur t r ej e c t e d the g o v e r nme nt ’ s a r g ume nt s f o r a “widerN o. 11

- 2507 13 evid en tiary cast” an d c o n c lud ed that a district cou rt mayn o tc o ns i de r p o l i c e r e po rt s o r c o mpl a i nta ppl i ca ti o ns i n det er m i ni ngwhethe r a pr i o r b ur g l ar y c o nvi ct i o n tha t r es ul te d fr o m a g uilty pl ea was a “ vi o l en t f el ony. ” Id. at 21-23; 125 S.Ct. 1254. Ins tead , t h e C ou rt he l d, a d istri ctc o ur t m ayo nl y e xa m i ne “ th e te r m s o fthe charg i ng docum ent, the ter m s o fa ple a agr eem ent o r tr an sc rip t o f co lloq u y b et w e e n ju d ge an d d efe n d an t in w hi ch the f actualbas i s f orthe ple a was co nfi rm ed by the defendant, o r to som e co m parabl e jud icialr eco rd o f th is in f or m ati on. ” Id. at2 6, 1 25 S
. Ct. 1 25 4. Li k e j ur y i nst ru c tio n s in a ju r y ca se , or “t h e d et ails of a ge n er ica lly l i m i te d c ha r g i ngdo cument
. . . i n a ny s o r t o fc as e, ” do cum en t s s t a t i n gth e f a c t s t o wh i c h th e d e fe n d an t a d mi t t e d i n e n t e r i n gth e p l e a wi l l g e n e r a l l y i n f o r m a l ate r cour t o n the cruci alquesti on: “whether the pl ea ha d ‘ ne ce ssari ly ’ r es te d o n the f ac t i den ti fy i ngthe burgl ar y a s g ener i c. ” Id. a t 2 1, 12 5 S
. Ct. 1 25 4 ( ci ting Taylo r, 495 U
. S. at 602, 110 S. C t. 2143 ). A pl ur al i tyo fthe Co ur t i n Sh epa rd als o note d that devel opm ents si nce Ta yl or

— p ar tic u lar ly Jon es v. U nited Sta tes , 526 U
. S. 2 27, 119 S.C t. 1215 , 143 L
. E d
. 2d 311 (1999), a nd A pp rend i v. N ew Jersey, 530 U
. S. 46 6, 12 0 S
. Ct. 23 48, 14 7 L.Ed. 2d 435 ( 2000 )

— p rovide d furt he r reason to ad he re to t h e l im ited ev iden tiary i nq uiry pe rm itted un d er Tayl or . Id. a t2 4 , 1 2 5 S
. Ct
. 1 2 5 4
. S pe c i fi c a l l y, the p l ur a l i ty po i nt ed to the r ul e i m po se d i n Jo nes a nd A pprendi th at“ an y f ac t o th erthan a pr i o r c o nv i ct i o n s uffi ci en t to r ai se the l i m i t o fthe possibl e federal se ntence m ust be f ound by a j ury, i n the abse nce o fany w ai vero f r i ghts by the def endant. ” Id. ( ci ti ng Jo nes , 52 6 U.S
. at24 3 n. 6, 11 9 S
. Ct. 12 15, a nd Appr e ndi, 530 U .S. at 4 90 , 120 S.C t. 23 48 ). W h ile14 N o. 11

- 2507

T his p art o f the op inio n d id no t com m an d a m ajor ity b eca u se 7 Justice T ho m as, as he exp lain ed in h i s c o nc u rren ce, w an ted to go even further than the plural ity and overrule A l m endarez Torres . 54 4 U. S. at27

- 28 , 12 5 S
. Ct
. 12 54 ( T ho m as, J. , c onc ur ri ng in p a rt an d co n cu rr in g in th e ju d g m en t). re c og n izin g t h e e x c ep tio n to th is rule f orpri orco nvi ctions e st ab l i sh ed i n A lm end a rez-To rres v. U nited Sta tes , 52 3 U. S
. 2 24, 1 18 S
. C t. 1 21 9, 1 40 L. Ed. 2d 35 0 ( 19 98 ) , the pl ur al i tyc o nc l ude d tha t th e di spu te d f acti n Sh epa rd

— w he th er a prior con v ic tion w as for “gen eric” bu rglary

— w as “to o re m ove d fr om the concl usi ve si gni fi cance ofa pri orj ud i ci alr eco rd, and to o m uch l i ke the fi nd i ngs s ubj ect to Jo nes a nd Appr e ndi, to sa y that A lm end a rez-To rres cl ear l y a uthor i zes a j ud ge to re sol ve th e d isp ute. ” Id. at25 , 12 5 S
. Ct. 12 54. T h e S i x th A me n d- 7 m ent c oncer ns underpi nning Jo nes a nd Appr e ndither ef o r e p r o v i de d fur the r s upportf o r l i mi t i ng“ the s c o pe ofj ud i cial f actfi nd i ng o n the disputed ge neri c char acte r of a pri orpl ea, j ust a s Taylo rco nstr ai ned j ud i ci al fi nd ings a b o ut the gen eric i m p li cation s of a j ury’s verdict
. ” Id. at25

- 26, 12 5 S
. Ct. 12 54. W e ad d ressed the im p act of Sh epa rd o n j ud i ci al f actfi nd i ng r ega rdi ng the appli cati on o fthe car eer o ff en derpr o vi si o n o fthe the n- m an dat o r y S en te nc i ng G u id elin es inNgo , 40 6 F.3 d at 8 42. The car eero ffender provi si on o fthe Gu i del i n es at the ti m e pr ovi ded that “[ p]rior sentences i m posed i n unrel ate d cases ar e t o be c ou n te d se p ar at ely ” a n d “[p ]rior se n te n c es im p os ed in re lat ed cases ar e t o be t re ate d as o ne se ntence. ” Id. at84 1 ( q u o t i n g U. S
. S
. G. § 4 A1
. 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) )
. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n NgoN o. 11

- 2507 15

R e g a r d i n g th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’s f i n d i n g th a tth e d e fe n d a n t ’s 8 c ri m es wer e notc onso lid at ed, we c onc l uded thatthe re was no (co n tin u ed ...) sente nced the defendant as a car eero ffender base d on tw o pri orar m ed robber y c onvi cti ons that i t con c lu ded w er e no t r el ate d because they w er e no t co nsol i dated for se n te n c in g or p ar t o f a c om m on s c h e m e o r p lan
. Id. O n ap p eal, the d efend an t argu ed that the d istri c t cou rt’s concl usi on that he w as a care ero ffender “enta i l ed fi nd i ng f acts bey ond the ‘ f act ofpri orco nvi cti on, ’ nam el y, that hi s pri orco nvi cti ons w er e no t co nsol i d ated fo r se nt e nc i ngo r p a r to fa c o mm o n s c he me o r p l a n, ” whi ch v i o l a t e d A lm end a rez-To rres as i nter prete d by A pprendi an d Sh epa rd
. Id. a t 84 2. W e ag r ee d wi ththe de fen dan t, no ting that the Shepar d pl ur a l i t y ’ s n a r r o wi ngo fthe A lm enda r ezTo rres excepti on f orpri orco nvi cti ons “suggests that the r eci divi sm exce pti on e xem pts o nl y those fin d ings tr ac ea b le t o a p rior j u d icia l rec or d o f ‘co n c lu siv e s ign ificance. ’ ” Id. W e there f or e con c l ud ed that the di str i ct cou rt’s fin d ing tha t the de fend an t’s crim es w ere not p art ofa com m on s chem e o r pla n, wh i ch “w as deter m i ned byr es o r tingt o sour ce s o finf o r m at i o n wi th o utthe ‘ co ncl usi v e s i g ni fi c a nc e ’ o fa p r i o r j ud i c i a l r e c o r d, wa s not
‘ cl ear l y a uthor i zed’ by Almend ar ez- To rres . ” Id. at84 2- 43. Because thi s find i ng was used to i ncre ase the def enda n t’s gui del i ne r ange, hi s s entence vi ol ate d the S i xth A m en d m en t. Id. at84 3; see also U nited Sta t es v. M cG ee, 408 F.3 d 96 6, 98 8- 89 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( re m anding car eer offe n d er se n te n c e b ec au se ofse n te n c in g c ou rt ’s p os sib le re lian c e o n a pol i ce r epor t t o deter m i ne thattwo offenses w ere not related ). 816 N o. 11

- 2507

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 S i x th Am e nd m e ntpr ob l e m b eca us e o ur pr e c e de nta l r e a dy l i m i t e d the di s t r i c tc ourtto c on s i de r i ng s ou r c e s tha th a ve the “concl usi ve si gnific ance ofa prior j ud ic ial rec ord” as re qui re d by S hepa rd whendec i di ng a di s put ed c ons ol i dat i on q u es tio n . Id. T h is co n cl u sio n, o f co u rs e, m ea n s th a t th e p o rt io n o f H u d sp eth 9 di sti ngui s hi ng Tayl oran d per m i t t i ng the c ons i der at i on of polic e re ports f or the diff erentoccas ion i nquiry, 42 F. 3d at 1 0 1 9 n . 3 , i s n o l o n g e r g o o d l a w. Re l y i ngo n Taylo r, Sh epa rd, a n d Ngo , the d istri ct cou rt i n thi s ca se concl ud ed i n i ts thor ough a nd well

- re aso ned opi ni on that i t was l i m i ted to co nsi deri ng “the te rm s o f the c harg i ng docum ent, the ter m s o f a p l ea agr eem ent o r tr an sc rip t o fc olloq u y b et w ee n j u d ge an d d efe n d an t in w hi ch the f actualbas i s f orthe ple a was co nfi rm ed by the defendant, o r to som e co m parabl e j u d i ci alr eco rd o f thi s info rm ati on, ” Sh epa rd, 54 4 U.S
. 13 at 26, 12 5 S
. Ct. 12 54, f o r the di ff er en t o cc as i o ns i nqui r y. W e a g r ee tha t th e r ea so ni ngb eh i nd the se de ci si o ns c l ea r l y a ppl i es t o the deter m i nati on o fwh etherpri oro ffenses o ccu rred o n “o cc as i o ns di ff er en t f r om on e a no th er . ” I nde ed, i n Ngo 9 w e no ted thatwh i l e the advi sory nature of th e G uideli ne s after U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U.S
. 220, 12 5 S
. Ct. 73 8, 16 0 L. Ed. 2d 62 1 (2005 ) , r es o l ve d the S i xth Am en dm en t i m pli cati ons ofj ud i ci alf actfi nd i ng r ega rdi ng the car eer offen d e r p r ovision of th e G uid eli ne s, “n o suc h cu re exi sts with r espectto st atuto ryenhancem ents

— such as [ th e A C C A]

— w hi ch m andate hi gherse ntences and l eave no di scr eti on t o the j ud ge. ” Ngo , 406 F.3d at84 3 n .1; seeN o. 11

- 2507 17

a lso H un ter, 41 8 F ed. A pp x. at49 4 ( ap p lying the Sh epa rd sour ce r est ri cti on t o the di ffer ent o ccasi ons i n q u iry, but al so noti ng tha t co urts m ay al so re l y o n und i sputed sect i ons of a PSR to deter m i ne w hether pr ior o ffenses w er e c o mm i t t e d o n di ffe r e nto c c a s i o ns )
. T hi s c o nc l us i on al so acco rds with oursi ste r ci rcui ts, m any o f w hi ch have als o deci ded thatthe Sh epa rd so urce re str i cti on appli es to the d et er m i nati on o fwh etherpri oro ffenses occur re d on “o ccasi ons differ ent fro m o ne ano ther ” under § 9 24 (e)(1 ). Se eU ni t e d St at e s v. Thom as , 57 2 F
. 3d 945, 95 0- 51 (D
. C. Cir
. 20 09) ( re cogni zi ng tha t the Sh epa rd s ourc e restric tion ap p li es to the differen t occa sions inq uiry); U ni t ed Stat e s v. Thom ps on , 421 F.3d 278 , 285-86 (4th C ir. 2005 ) (up hold ing the d is t rict court’s reli an ce on the P SR to find tha t th r ee b ur g l ar i es o cc ur r ed o n di ffer en t occa si ons w here thati nfo rm ati on was deri ved fro m Sh epa rd -ap p ro ve d so u rc es ); U nited S ta tes v. Full er, 45 3 F
. 3d 274, 27 9- 80 ( 5th Ci r. 20 06) ( applying Sh epa rd to the diff er ent o ccasi ons i nquir y an d vacat i ng se ntence bec a us e the Sh epa rd

- approve d docum ents did notes tabl i sh th at th e offen ses occ urred on d ifferent o cca sions); U nited St at e s v. Tayl or, 41 3 F
. 3d 1146 , 11 57 -58 ( 10th Cir
. 20 06) ( v a c a t i nga s e nt e nc e enha nc e d b y the ACCA a nd r e man ding beca us e it w as u nc lear w he th er the d ist r ic t cou rt l i m i ted i tse l fto Sh epa rd -appro ve d s o ur ce s i n de te r m i ni ng that the defe nd ant’ s pri orcr i m es w er e co m m i tte d on d ifferent occ asions); U nited Sta tes v . Sneed, 60 0 F
. 3d 1326 , 1332

- 33 ( 11th Cir
. 20 10) ( vacat i ng an A CC A

- enhanced sente nce and r em anding w here the dist ri ct cou rtr el i ed o n po l i c e r e po r t s , whi c h a re not Sh epa rd -ap p ro ve d , in d eterm ining th at th e d efend an t’s prior conviction s w ere18 N o. 11

- 2507

com m i tte d on di ffer ent o ccasi ons)
. A ccor dingl y, as the di str i ct c ourtpro perl y c oncl ud ed her e, courts m ay only con side r Sh ep a rd

- appr o ve d s o ur ce s i n de te r m i ni ng whethe r pr i o r o ff en se s o cc ur r ed o n s epa r ate o cc as i o ns un d er § 924(e)( 1).

B . D iffere n t O c c as ion s In q u iry W e t ur n no w t o the pr i mar y qu e s t i o n o n a ppeal o f w hetherKir kl and’s 1985 co nvi cti ons w er e fo r offenses “co m m i tte d on oc casi ons differ ent fro m o ne ano ther ” a s re q u ire d b y § 92 4(e )(1) . A lth ou gh w e a n d ot h er circ u it co ur ts ha ve g r appl ed wi ththe mean i ngo f“ o cc as i o ns diff e r e nt f r o m o ne a no the r, ” the maj o r i ty o f thi s c o ur t s et f or th a fra m ew or k form aki ng the deter m i nati on r equi r ed by§ 9 24 ( e) ( 1) i n H udspeth . 4 2 F.3 d a t 1 01 9. H udspeth em p ha sized that the key issu e for p urp oses of the statu tory enhancem ent i s no t whether th e p rior offenses ar e “ re l at ed, ” but whethe r e ac h a r o se o uto fa “ ‘ se par at e an d dist i n c t cri m i nal epi sode. ’ ” Id. ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc hi e m an , 894 F.2d 90 9, 91 1 (7 th C ir. 19 90 ) )
. H udspeth ind icated that th e p rim ary qu estion relevan t to this d eterm i nati on “ i s s i m ple : were the c ri m es sim ulta neo us or w ere they se quent ial? ” Id. at10 2 1
. T h i s me a n s th a t“ o n e c r i me hard on the heel s of anothe r can be a ‘ separ ate and dis ti nct cri m i nal epi sode[
. ] ’ ” U nited Sta tes v. G o din ez , 998 F
. 2d 471, 47 2 (7 th C ir. 19 93 ); U nite d State s v. M orris , 29 3 F
. 3d 1010 , 10 14 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. The maj o rity i n H udspeth r eas oned that an i nd i vi du al w ho has an o pp or tuni ty to w i thdraw fro m h is c rim in al a c tiv ity , bu t w h o c h oo se s t o c om m it ad d itio n al c rim es , sh ou ld be p u n ish ed m or e h ar sh lyN o. 11

- 2507 19 than an i nd i vi du alwh o com m i ts si m ult aneous cri m es an d “ has no opportunity to turn back and abandon h is cri m i nal co nd uct. ” 4 2 F
. 3d at 1021
. A ccor dingl y, under thi s inquir y, co urts co nsi der t h e “n atur e o fthe cri m es, th e i den ti ti es o fthe v i ct i m s, a nd the l o ca ti o ns ” o fthe o ff en se s, a nd w he th erthe “ per pet r at o r ha d the o ppo r tu
nity to ce ase and desi st f ro m hi s cr i m i nal act i ons at any t i m e. ” Id. at10 19 ; M orris , 29 3 F
. 3d at 1013
. A pp l yi ng the se fact or s her e, we agr ee w i th the di str i ct co ur t th atthe “ f ac tu al l y s par se ” r ec o r d s he ds l i tt l e l i g ht on whe the rthe 1 9 8 5 o ffe ns e s o c c ur r e d o n the s a me occa si o n. The c ha r g i ngi nf o r m at i o ns f o r the b ur g l ar y a nd ro bber y e stabl i sh thatKir kl and a n d h i s co - defe nd ants c om m i t t e d bo th offe n se s o n th e s am e d ay , bu t t h er e is no i nfo rm ati on as to the ti m i ng or sequence ofev en ts. Re g ar di ngthe l o ca ti o n of th e o ffen se s, we k no w the b ur g l a r y o c c ur r e d in the r e s i de nc e of Ch a r l e s Gab b a r d, b u tw e d o n o tkn o w th e l o c a t i o n o fth e r o b b e r y . I n t e r ms ofthe vi ctim s ofthe offenses , the i nfo rm ati on m ake s cl earthatGabbar d w as the v i cti m o fthe burg lar y. Fo r the r o b b e r y, the di s t r i c t c o ur t f o un d tha t the v i c t i m was a Domi no ’ s Pi zz a del i ve r y perso n. On appe al, Ki r k l an d ar gues tha tthi s fi nd i ngwa s i n e r r o r b e c a us e the r o bber y a nd theft co unts l i ste d i n the inf or m ati on f or ca us e number“ C 8 5- 10 5” a r e se par at e co unts, a nd “ no th

i ng” in the i n for m at ion ind i cate s that the r obbe rywas of a Domi no ’ s Pi zza de l i ve r y pe r so n. I ns te ad, Ki r k l an d su gg es ts , th e “ log ica l infe re n c e” from th e e vid en c e is tha tthe v i c t i m o fthe r o b b e r y wa s Gab b a r d. W e nee d not d ecid e w he th er the d istri ct co u r t ’s fi ndi ngtha t th e unna m ed i ndi vi duali den ti fi ed i n the20 N o. 11

- 2507

Bas ed o n the gove rn m en t ’ s r epr es en t at i ons atthe res en 10 t e n c i n g h e a r i n g a n d i n i t s s e n t e n c i n g me mo , w e a s s u me w itho u t deciding thatK ir kland could have been convict ed ofboth o ffense s und er s uch a s cenari o und er Arkansas l aw at the t im e. ro bber y c ount was an e m plo ye e ofDom i no’ s Pi zza w as a perm i ssibl e i nfe re nce f or the dist ri ct cour t to m ak e; even w ith th is find ing of fact an d the d ifferent n atu re ofthe off enses , we cannot concl ud e tha t the o ffenses o cc ur r ed o n s epa r at e o cc as i o ns . As the b ur g l ar y a nd ro bber y happened on t h e sam e day, Kir kl and w as charged w i thc o - defen dan ts f o r b o tho ffen se s, a nd the r ec o r d l acks ke y i nf o r m at i o n s ucha s th e ti m i nga nd l oca tio n ofthe off enses , we do not know i fthe offenses o cc ur r ed si m ul ta ne o us l y o r s eque nt i al l y . T he g o ve r nm ent c onceded at K i rk l and’s re sente nci ng hea ri ng tha t K i rk l and coul d hav e c om m i tte d one o ffense w hi l e hi s co defe nd ants com m i tte d the o thero ffense. N ev er the- 10 l es s, the g o ve r nm en t ur g es us t o a ffi rm th e AC CA e nhancem ent despi te th e am bi gui ti es i n the re cor d because once the g ove rnm ent pr ovi ded ev i de n c e of three pri or “vi ol ent fel ony” co nvi cti ons, i t was K irk l and’s burden to pr o ve tha t t he off en se s o cc ur r ed o n the s ame o cc as i o n. Gi ve n the spa r se re co r d, the g o ve r nm en t ar g ue s, Ki r k l an d c an n otm ee t t h at bu rd en . It w as on thi s ba si s that the di str i ct c ourtappli ed th e AC CA e nha nc ement; i t di d no t co nc lud e t hat th e Sh epa rd -app roved sourc es estab li sh ed that the 19 85 off en se s o cc ur r ed “o n o cc as io ns di ffer en t f r o m o ne a nothe r, ” but ra therthatKir kl and coul d not pr ov e any-N o. 11

- 2507 21 th i ngt o the c o nt r ar y g i ve n the s tate of the r ec o r d. The so ur c e o f th i s b u r d e n s h i ft i n g s c h e me u p o n wh i c h t he g o ve r nm en t’ s ar g um en t res ts i s a f o o tn o te i n H udspeth , in w hi c h the maj o r i t y o fthi s c o ur to ut l i ne d the b urden of p ro of for th e s ep ar at e o c c as ion s in q u iry as follow s: [ U ] nd er§ 924( e)(1) , the gov er nm ent m ust es t a b l i s h tha ta de fe nd a nth a s thr e e p r i or vi ol ent fel ony con vi cti ons. A cer ti fi ed re c or d of co n vic tio nor a [P SR ], i f n otch all e n g e d , wi l l nor ma l l y s a t i s fy th i s s h o wi ng. . . . The bur den t hen shi fts to the def endant to est abl i sh by a p repond er ance o fthe e vi den ce that the pr i o r c o nv i ct i o ns o cc ur r ed o n a s i ng l e “o cc as i o n, ” an d thus cannot be the basi s f or the s entence enhancem en t un d er § 924(e)( 1). H udspeth , 42 F .3d at10 19 n .6 (in te rn al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ). On app eal, Kir kl and argues that thi s bur den al l oca ti on com bi ne d with the Shepar d so ur ce r es tr i ct i o n mea ns th at th e A C C A enh an cem en t is au tom atic w he n t h ere a r e fe w Sh epard- appr o ve d do cument s an d the y a r e i nc o ncl usi ve as to the s epara te occa sions i nquir y. W e a gr ee th a t th e l a n d s c a p e o f th e l a w i n v o l v i n g s e n t e n c i n ge nh an c em en ts su c h as th e A C C A h as ch an ge d d ra m at ica lly si nce Hu dspet h
. W he n H uds pe t h w as deci ded , we ass ume d that d i s t r i c tc o ur t s h a d fr e e r e i g n t o de v e l o p a f actualr eco rd r ega rd in g the c ri m e o fco nvi cti on t o supp or t a n A CC A enhancem ent, and coul d r ely upon a wide v ar i etyo fso urce s to m ake f actualfi nd i ngs. H udspeth , 4 2 F
. 3d at1 01 9 n. 3. Tha t i s clear l y no t th e22 N o. 11

- 2507

ca se a ny m o r e. As di sc us se d abo ve , a l th o ug h Sh epa rd i nvol ved the “vi ol ent fel ony” i ssue, i ts l ogi c ext ends to the “ diff er ent o cca sio ns” i ssue, and i ts noti ons that “cer tai nty o fr eco rd” i s r equi re d for a n A CC A enhancem ent and that “co l l ate ra l tr i al s” re gar ding past convi cti o ns s ho ul d b e av o i ded cl ea r l y c o nfl i ctwi th H udspeth ’s appr o va l o fa n e xt en si ve f ac tu ali nqui r y a t se nte nc i ng re ga rd in g p rior co n vic tio n s. See Sh epa rd, 544 U
. S. at23 n. 4, 125 S. C t. 1 2 5 4 ( “ Taylo ri s cl ea r tha t an y e nqui r y b ey o nd sta tute and charg i ng docum ent m ust be nar ro w l y r est ric te d to im p lem en t t h e o b j ec t o f th e s ta tu te an d av oid ev id en tia ry d isp u te s.” ). W hen proper l y v i ew ed i n thi s pos t- Sh e pa rd co ntext, w e b el i e v e t h at th e b u rd en sh iftin g s c h em e s et fort h in H uds pe t h is n o lon g e r te n ab le b ec au se it es se n tia lly re q u ire s a n A C C A en h an c em e n t ev en if th e a va ilab le Sh epa rd

- app ro ved docum ents

— th e o nl y e vi den ce a s en tencing cour t m ay consi der

— i s i nc o nc l us i v e as to w hetherthe off en se s occurr ed on s epara te occa si ons. Aft ertho r o ug h c o ns i der at i o n ofourpr i o r pr ec ede nt, the na tu r e o fpr o o ff o r the di ffer en t o cc as i o ns i nqu ir y, a nd th e o pi ni o ns o fo urs i ster ci r cui ts , we co nc l ude tha t th e m or e a pp ro pri ate burd en al l oca ti on f orthe separ ate occa si ons i nquir y r equi re s the governm ent t o est abl i sh by the preponderance of th e e vi dence

— usi ng Sh epa rd

approve d sour ces

— th at th e pr i o r c o nv i ct i o ns us ed f o r the AC CA enha nc ement wer e “c o m m i tt ed on oc ca si o ns d iffer ent fro m o ne ano ther
. ” In pract i ce, thi s m eans that i fthe Sh epa rd -app roved doc um en ts before a district cou rt ar e e quivo calas to wh etherthe offen ses o ccurr ed on th e s am e o c c as ion , th e A C C A d oe s n otap p ly.N o. 11

- 2507 23 This concl usi on f ol l ows our w el l

- est abl i shed prece dent. A re vi ew o fo urc as es c o ns i der i ngthe separ at e o cc as i o ns requ irem en t before and after H udspeth s h o ws th a twe ha ve o nl y a ffi rm ed AC CA e nha nc ement s afte r c o ncl ud i ng tha t the underl yi ng r eco rd i nd i cate d that the pri or offe n se s w er e c om m itt ed se q u en tia lly. See, e.g., U nited St ates v. N igg, 667 F.3d 929 , 936 (7th C ir. 2012) (“N igg’s cr im es wer e o bv i o us l y c o m m i tt ed i n s eque nt i alf as hi o n, as it is p h ys ica lly im p os sib le for on e p er so n to co m m it th r ee a r m ed r o bb er i es s i m ultane o us l y a t th r ee di ffer en t l o ca ti o ns a g ains t th r ee di ffer en t v i ct i m s o n thr ee di ffer en t d at es .”); M orris , 29 3 F
. 3d at 1013 ( “[ T]he tw o offenses com m i tte d by M or ri s, al though cl ose i n ti m e a nd l oca ti o n, i nv o l ve d di st i nc t cr i m i na l a g g r es si o ns fr o m whi chhe h ad an op p or tu n ity to ce as e a n d w ith d ra w .”); U nited S t a t e s v . Car de nas , 217 F.3d 49 1, 49 2 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ) (“In th is cas e, th e t w o s ales of c rack coca ine on M arch 27 w ere tw o s ep ar at e a n d d is t in c t e p iso d es . W h ile C ar d en as so ld th e cr a c k cocain e to the sam e pe op le, the sales w ere separ ate d by f or ty- fi ve m i nute s an d a hal fa bl ock
. Cardenas had pl enty ofti m e t o change h i s m i nd , to cea se an d d esist, an d to refuse to sell to th e in fo r m a nt s.”) ; Go din ez , 998 F.2d at47 3 (“ G od in ez . . . co m m itt ed h is cri m es aga i nst di ffer en t vi cti m s, i n differ ent pl aces , m o r e th ana n h o ura par t. I t woul d s tr ain l ang ua g e co nsi derabl y, w ithout ser vi ng anypurpose pla usibl y a ttr ibut ed to Con gress, to treat th e kidn ap p ing an d the robb ery as a sin gle ‘o c c as ion .’ ”); Sc hi e m an , 89 4 F
. 2d at 913 ( “Sc hi em an had succes sfully c om ple ted the burg l ar y o f J enny’ s Cake Fa i r and safel y e scaped fro m the prem i ses b e f o r e c o mmi t t i n gth e s u b s e q u e n to ffe n s e . ”)
. I n f a c t, we24 N o. 11

- 2507 have not ci ted the por ti on o fthe H ud sp eth burden shi f t i ngs c he me tha tr e qu i r e s the de fe nd a ntt o p r ove th atthe pr i o r offens es o cc ur r ed o n s epa r at e o cc as i o ns si nce H udspeth , an d ev en th en , i t w as n otatiss u e. I nstea d, wh e ne v e r we h a v e h a d d o ub t s a s t o wh e the r the r eco rd i nd i cate d that the o ffenses o ccurr ed on separ ate o ccasi ons, we have declined to use the o ffense as a pre dica te convi cti on f orthe A CC A e n h ancem ent o r re m anded the case to the dist ri ct c ourtf orfu rt h er f actfi nd i ng. The fi rs t t im e w e co nsi dered wh etherthe def en dan t i n H udspeth w as app ro pri ate l y dete rm i ned to be an ar m ed car eercr im in al, the di str i ct c ourthad re l i ed up on three burg l ar y c onvi cti ons the de fen d ant had r ecei ved i n 198 3 a s the pre dica te s for the A CC A enhancem en t. U nite d State s v. H udspeth , No
. 9 1

- 3 7 8 6 , 9 74 F
. 2d 1340 , 1992 W L 20 5 6 66, at * 2 (7th C ir. 1992) (un p ub li sh ed ). The onl y inform at ion we had re gar ding the b urgl ar i es on a pp eal, h ow ever, was that the defendant and tw o cod e f e n d a n t s “ h a d e n t e r e d Ho me s ty l e C l e a n e r s , Me l o c r e me D on u t, a n d F ar m er ’s In su ra n c e C om p an y loc at ed in Spring field, I l l i noi s. ” Id. W e co ncl ud ed that thi s “ bri ef d escrip tion” did not p rovide us w ith “su ffici en t in fo rm ation to d iscern w he th er the 19 83 bu rglari es w ere p art of t h e s am e o r se p ar at e a n d d ist in c t c r i m in al e p iso d es ,” an d w e the refore “[ cou ld n ot] d ecid e w he th er H ud sp eth ’s sente nce was pro perl y e nhanced und er§ 924( e)
. ” Id. ( ci tat i on o m i tte d). W e v acat ed the d efend ant’ s s entence and r e man de d the c a s e t o the di s t r i c tc o ur tf o r fur the r fac tu al d ev elo p m e n t. Id. A fterthe dist ri ct c ourti nquir ed i nto the f acts sur ro und i ng the three burg l ar i es on r e man d, the maj o r i t y o fthi s c o ur ta ffi r med the ACCAN o. 11

- 2507 25

A s n oted above , i n H udspe t h the m aj or i t y r el i ed upo n 11 source s f or this conclusi on that can no l onger be consi dered after S hepa rd
. enhancem ent b ecause the fac ts re veal ed that “H ud speth com m i tted t h re e s epara te cri m es, atthr ee separ ate ti m es, ag ai ns t three se parat e v i cti m s, i n thr ee separ ate l oca ti ons, ” a nd t hat “ [ e] ntryi nto each s uccess i ve b u sin es s re flec te d a c lea r an d d elib er at e ch oic e t o c om m it a ‘ dist i nct ag gr ess i on. ’ ” H udspeth , 42 F. 3d at 1022

- 23 (citation om itted ). 11 I n a pos t- H udspeth cas e, Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Th om as , we w e r e a g a i n f a c e d wi th a n a mbi g uo us r e c o r d r e g a r di ng a defe nd ant’ s pri orco nvi cti ons. 28 0 F
. 3d 1149 , 11 59- 60 (7th C ir. 2002). T h e d efend an t had three p riorrobbery c o n v i c t i o n s , and wh i l e we c o n c l u d e d th a ta tl e a s tt wo o fth e co n v i c t i o n s o c c u r r e d o n d i ffe r e n to c c a s i o n s , we not ed tha t “[ i ] t i s unc l ea r fr o m the r ec o r d whethe r the thi rd r obbe ry, wh i ch w as com m itt ed o n the sam e day as o ne o f th e o th er s, was al so co m m i tt ed on a di ffer en t occa si on because w e do not know the t i m e o fday that the r obbe ryo ccurr ed nordo we have a n y facts ( othe r than the i denti ty ofthe vi cti m and the am ou n t of m oney tak en) sur ro und i ng the r obbe ry . ” Id. at 11 59 n .3 . T h is ambi g ui typr o ve d in co ns eque nt i ali n Taylo rbec ause the defendant had an addit i onalco nvi cti on that s er ved as the thi rd predi cate offense f orthe A CC A enhancem ent. Id. a t 11 60
. Nev er th el es s, i t sh o ws tha t we ha ve no t en dorse d th e gover nm ent’ s pos i ti on that pr oo fo fpri or “violent fel ony ” con victions p lus an am biguou s record26 N o. 11

- 2507

r eg ar di ngthe s epa r at e o cc as i o ns i nqui r y i s su ffi ci en t to su p p or t a n A C C A en h an c em en t. Unl i k e wi tho th erque st i o ns f o r whi chthe de fen dan t be ar s th e bur deno fpr o o fa t sente nc i ng, r equi r i ngthe g o ve r nm en t to pr o ve b y the pr epo nde r an ce o fthe evi dence thatthe pri oro ffen se s occurr ed on s epara te o cc as i o ns i s no t ano ne r o us b ur den
. Under§ 9 24 ( e) ( 1) , the gov er nm ent a l re ady has the b urden ofpro vi ng thr ee predi cate co nvi cti ons f or“vi ol ent fel on[ ies], ” a nd after Sh epa rd, the evi d en c e used to deter m i ne thato ffenses occur re d o n separ ate occa si ons i s the sam e e vid ence used to deter m i ne i fthe pri orco nvi cti ons w er e f or “vi ol ent fel on[ i es] .” See Sn eed, 60 0 F
. 3d at 1332 ( “ [ T] he re is s i mpl y n o di s t i nc t i o n l e ftb e t we e n the s c o pe of p er m iss ible ev id en c e t h at ca n be u se d to d et er m in e if the pri or convi cti ons ar e vi ol ent fel oni es . . . or if they w er e c om m itt ed on d iffe r e n t o c c as ion s[.]” ); Thom ps on , 42 1 F
. 3d at2 86 ( The “ A C C A’s us e o fthe t er m ‘ o cc as i o n’ r equi r es r ec o ur se o nl y t o da ta no r m al l y f o und in c o ncl usi ve jud ici alr eco rds, such a s the date and l oca ti on o f ano ff en se, upo n whi ch Taylo ra nd Sh epa rd sa y we m ay rely. ”). I nd eed , in rej ectin g argu m en ts a ft e r Appr e ndi tha tthe s e para t e o c c a s i o ns de t e r mi na t i o n f a l l s o ut s i de the A lm end a rez-To rres exce pti on , w e a nd o therci rcui ts have gone to gr eatl engths to expl ai n that the f acts related to w he th er prior con victions occ urred on d if

f er en t o cc as i o ns c an no t be e as i l y distingui sh ed f r o m the fac ts rela te d to th e e x ist en c e o f th e p rior co n vic tio n s. See, e. g., M orris , 293 F
. 3d at 1012 (con clud ing tha t the diff er ent o ccasi ons deter m i nati on f al l s withi n the Appr e ndi ex cep tion); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa nt i ago , 268 F. 3d 151, 15 6- 57N o. 11

- 2507 27 (2d Cir. 2001) (“[W ]e are satisfi ed
. . . that § 924(e)’ s ‘different o ccasi ons’ r equi re m ent f al l s s afel y withi n the ra nge o ff ac ts t r adi ti o na l l y f o und b y j udg es a t se nt en ci nga nd i s s uffi ci entl y inter w ove n w i th the f acts o fthe pri or c r i mes tha t A pp r e ndidoes notr equi re di ffer ent f actfi nd ers an d d ifferent bu rd en s o f p roof for Section 924(e)’s v a r i o u s r e q u i r e m en ts .”); Thom ps on , 4 2 1 F
. 3d at2 85

- 86 ( “T he dat a ne ce ss ar y t o de te r m i ne the ‘se par at en es s’ o fthe occa sions is i nh eren t in th e fac t o f th e prior conv ictions.”); U n it ed S ta te s v. B urgin , 38 8 F
. 3d 177, 18 6 ( 6th Ci r. 20 04) ( “[ T]he ‘ diff er ent o ccasi ons’ r equi re m ent o f§ 924( e) cannot be si gni fi cantl y di sti ngui shed fro m ‘ the f act ofa pri or c on v i c t i o n .’ ”); U nite d State s v. Harris , 44 7 F
. 3d 1300 , 13 04 ( 10 thCi r . 2 00 6) ( “Li k e th e numberof prio r c r i m es a nd w hethertheyar e v i ol ent fel oni es, separat eness i s a n
‘ i nquir y inti m ate l y r el at ed to wh ethera pri orco nvi ctio n ex ist s.’ ”) (c ita tio n om itt ed ). R eq uiring th e govern m en t to prov e tha t t h e p rioroff enses o ccu rre d on separ ate o ccasi ons i s a l so not an oner ous b urden beca use, as di scusse d above, a fund am entalas pect o ft h e fra m ew or k we have adopted f or the s epara te o ccasi ons i nquir y i s whether the def endant h ad an o pp or tuni ty between offenses to cea se f ro m the cri m i nal act i vi ty. Thus, i fthe Sh epa rd -approved do cument s sh o w tha t th e o ffen se s o cc ur r ed o n di ffe r en t d ay s, or, in ot h er w or d s , w er e c om m itt ed se q u en tia lly r a th e r t h a n s i mu l t a n e o u s l y, th e g o v e r n me n tw i l lp r e s u mab l y me e t i t s b u r d e n . O r i f th e d o c u me n t s s h o w th a tt he o ff en se s o ccu rred on th e sa m e day, b utthe na tu r e o fthe off enses i s s uch that they could n ot have occur re d wi th o utg i vingthe de fen dan t an op p or tu ni tyt o r ec o n-28 N o. 11

- 2507 si derhi s o r he r c o nduc t an d r efus e t o c o m m i t th e secon d crim e, th e govern m en t w il l li kely m eet its bu rden. I t i s o n ly i n excepti onalcas es such as thi s o ne, w hi ch have f actual l y s parse r eco rds a nd f acto rs that com pli cate the deter m in ati on o fwh etherthe offenses occur re d si m ult aneousl y or se quenti al l y, thatthe gov ernm en t wi l l fi nd i t di ffi cul t to meeti ts b ur den
. T h e S u pr eme C o u r th a s r e c e n t l y a c k n o wl e d g e d , h o weve r, thatthe “a bsence o fr eco rds wil l o ften frust ra te appli cati on o fthe m odi fi ed cate gorical approa ch, ” use d to deter m i ne wh ethera pri oro ffense quali fi es as a “vi ol ent fel ony. ” Jo hn son v. U nited Sta tes ,

___U .S.

___, 130 S. Ct. 12 65, 12 73, 17 6 L. Ed
. 2d 1 (2010)
. W e do not th ink thatthe l ac ko fa va i l ab l e r ec o r ds sh eddi ngl i g ht on th e d ifferent occ asions inq uiry shou ld lead to a d if

fer en t re su lt. The go v e r n me n t ’ s e a s e o fa c c e s s t o p r o o ff o r the separ ate o ccasi ons re quir em ent s tands i n c on tr astto i ts acces s t o proo ff orquesti ons re gar ding the inval i dity o f a defen dan t’ s pr i o r c o nv i ct i on, w hi chthe de fen dan t bear s the bur den ofpro vi ng wh en chal l engi ng the use of a p rior co n vic tio n u n d er th e A C C A
. See, e.g., U nited St at e s v. Gal l m an , 907 F. 2d 639, 643 ( 7th Cir
. 19 90 ) (“F or pur po se s o fs ec ti o n 9 24 ( e) (1), w e be l i ev e th ato nc e th e gov er nm en t h as shown thata defe nd ant has thr ee pri or‘ vi ol ent felony’ co nvi cti ons, the burden r est s with th e d efe nda ntt o s ho w tha t th e co nv i ct i o n was unc o nsti tuti onal
. ”) ( ci tat i ons om i tte d). W e and o ther ci rcui ts have r e qu i r e d d e f e nd a nt s t o b e a r thi s b ur de n b e c a us e “[ a] ny g i ven co nvi cti on m i ght s ufferany ofa m yr i ad ofco nsti tuti onaldefects” a nd “[ i ] t would appro achN o. 11

- 2507 29

A fter C u st i s v. U n i te d S tat es , 511 U.S
. 485, 114 S
. Ct. 1732, 128 12 L. Ed. 2d 5 17( 19 94 ) , a defen dantm ay onl y c ol l at er al l y att ac k a p rior state con v ict i o n o b tain ed in v iola tion of the rig ht to cou nsel. the absurd to r equi re th e gover nm ent t o und er tak e t o p ro ve gu i l t a ll ove r ag ain in e ve ry p re d ica te co n vic tio n .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ruo , 94 3 F
. 2d 1274, 12 76 ( 11th Cir
. 19 91) (ad opti ng the Gall m an s t a n d a r d f o r c h a l l e n g e s t o t he val i dity o fpri orco nvict i ons)
. S i m i l ar l y, we have 12 re quir ed defe nd ants to bearthe burden ofpro vi ng by the pr eponderance o fthe e vi dence thatthei r ci vi l r i ghts have been re sto red w hen chal l engi ng the use ofa pri or convi cti on under the “a nti

- m ouset rapp i ng” pr ovi si on o f 18 U .S.C . § 92 1(a )(20 ). Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Gant, 62 7 F. 3d 67 7, 68 2 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi t r ano , 40 5 F.3d 50 6, 5 0 9 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 05 ). Th is is b ec au se “[i]tis ce rt ain ly m uche as i erf o r c r i m i na l de fen dan ts t o r ai se the i ss ue ofwh etherthei r p rior convi cti ons have been null i fi ed or th ei r ci vi l r i ghts othe rwis e r est or ed” than forthe gov ernm en t “t o r efut e ev er y po ss ibi l i tytha t cr i m i na l de fen d an ts h a v e h ad th eir p rior co n vic tio n s n u llified or th eir ci vi l r i ghts re sto re d.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bar t e l ho , 72 F. 3d 43 6, 44 0 ( 1 s t C ir. 19 95 ); see also Fo ster, 65 2 F
. 3d at 791 ( “Requir i ng [ the g ove rnm ent t o prove bey ond a re as o nab l e do ub t tha t the de fe nd a nt ’ s c i v i l r i g ht s ha ve not be en r es to r ed] ‘ woul d i m po se ano ne r o us b ur den, ’ s ee i ng that a defendant ‘ or dinar i l y wil l be m uch bett erabl e t o ra i se the i ssue ofwh etherhi s . . . c ivil rights have been re sto re d.’ ”) (quoting U nited Sta tes v. Flo w er, 29 F. 3d 530, 535 ( 10th Cir
. 19 94) )
. The sa m e ca n b e sa i d ofthe car eer30 N o. 11

- 2507 offe n d er p ro vis ion of th e Se n te n c in g G u id elin es . See, e.g., U nite d S t at e s v. Joy, 1 9 2 F
. 3 d 7 6 1 , 7 7 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 999) ( “Because the defe n d an t i s in the bestposi ti on t o know whethe r he j o i nt l y pl an ne d t wo o r mor e cr i m es a nd i s th e be ne fi ci ar y o f an y r edu ct i o n i n hi s se nt en ce , he has the bu rd en of sh o w in g t h at his p rioroffen ses w ere p art of a si ngl e schem e o r pla n [ und erthe car eero ffender provi si on o fthe Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes. ] ”) ( ci tati ons om i tte d)
. By c o nt r as t, i n the v as t m aj o r i tyo fc as es , pr o ving that a defendant’s pri orco nvi cti ons w er e “ com m i tte d on o cc as i o ns di ff er en t f r o m o ne a no th er ” wi l l i m po se no g r ea te r bur den o n th e g o ve r nm en t th an the go ve r nm ent a l re ady has i n prov i ng the e xi ste nce o fthr ee p rior “v iole n t fe lon y” co n vic tio n s. Ou r c on c l usi on that the go ver nm ent m ust pro ve bo ththe e xi st en ce o fthe pr i o r c o nv i ctions f o r v i o l en t fel onies an d that the p riorconv ictions occu rred on d ifferent o ccasi on s is bol ste re d by o ur s i ste r ci rcui ts’ tr eat
m en t o f th e d iffer en t o c c a s i o n s inq u iry , w h ich als o in d ica te s th atthe b ur denf o r the di ffer en t occ as i o ns i n q u i r y p r o p e r l y b e l o n g s wi th th e g o v e r n me n t
. F o r e x a mpl e, i n U nite d State s v. B oyk in , th e F ou rt h C irc u it re c en tly vac at e d a n A C C A enh an cem en t w he re the d istri ct cou rt i m p rop er l y c o ns i der ed a PS R tha t di d no t “b ea r the e a r ma r k s o fd e r i v a t i o nfr o m Sh epa rd

- approve d sour ces” f or the s epara te occa si ons i nquir y. 66 9 F
. 3d 467, 46 9- 471 ( 4th Ci r. 20 12)
. W i thout the PS R, th e o nl y info rm ati on ap p lica b le t o t h e d iffer en t o c c as ion s in q u iry fou n d in Sh epa rd

- appr o ve d s o ur ce s was the f ac t th atthe de fen dan t w as convi cted o ftwo vi ol ent fel oni es

— o ne f o r s e c o nd

d eg re e m u rd er an d th e o th er for a s sa u lt w ith a d ea d lyN o. 11

- 2507 31

w eap on infli cting seriou s inj ury

— on t h e s a m e d ay . Id. at 4 7 1- 7 2
. T he F o ur th Ci r c ui tc o nc l ud e d tha tthe “ ACCA ca nno t appl y on su cha meag erf ac tu alb as i s, ” r ea so ni ng that “[ i ] t ca nnot be sa i d that s i m plybec ause tw o cri m es ha ve bee n c o m m itte d they nec essarily occurred on d if

ferent occ asions; suc h an i nt erp retation w ou ld n ulli fy the di ff er ent- occa sio ns l anguage i n § 9 24( e)
. ” Id. at47 2; se e also U nite d State s v. R uss el l , 40 2 F ed. A pp x. 77 2, 77 3 ( 4th Ci r. 20 10) ( “I fthe gov er nm ent c an dem onst ra te, ba se d upo n Sh epa rd

- appr o ve d do cument s . . . tha t th e [ pr i o r ] c o nv i ct i o n s we r e c o mmi t t e d o n o cc as i o ns diff er ent fro m o ne ano ther, t hen the dist ri ct c ourtcan appl y the ACCA e nha nc em en t. ”) ( i nt erna l c i ta ti o ns om itted ). S i m il arly, i n Sn eed, the Ele venth Ci rcui t was f aced w i th an appeal fro m an A C CA enhancem ent in w hi ch the di str i ct c ourthad consi dered pol i ce r epor ts

— a no nShepar d- approve d sour ce

— i n deter m i nin g that the def endant’s pri or fel ony convi cti ons w er e co m m i tte d on d if fe rent occas ions. 600 F.3d at 1329. Th e state cou rt i nd i ctm ent, wh i ch w as the o nl y Sh epa rd

- appr o ve d do cume n t p r o d u c e d b y th e g o v e r n me n t, c o n t a i n e d t he s a me l an g ua g e f o r ea ch o f th e defen dan t’ s th r ee dr ug off enses and did “no t s peci fy a date orti m e, m uch l ess d iffer en t date s o r differ ent t i m es on the sa m e date
. ” Id. at 1333
. Because the “ gover nm ent m ust s how ‘ the three pr ev i o us c o nv i ct i o ns a r o se o uto fa s epa r at e an d dist i nct ‘ cri m i nal episo de, ’ ” a nd the gov er nm ent had not sub m itted any oth er Sh epa rd

- appr o ve d m at er i al, the El ev en thCi r cui t va ca te d the de fen dan t’ s se nt en ce a nd re m an d ed th e c as e fo r re se n te n c in g. Id. at13 32 -33 ; see also32 N o. 11

- 2507 U ni t e d S t at e s v. M or e j on , 43 7 F ed. A pp x. 79 5, 79 8- 99 (11 th Cir
. 2011 ) ( vacat i ng sente nce w here the sour ces in supp or t o fthe gover nm ent’ s a sse rt i on that the cr i m es occur re d on di ff er ent o ccasi ons w er e a rr estr epor ts, w hi ch ar e no t Sh epa rd -app roved , and th e state cou rt j ud gm ents did noti ncl ud e t h e d ate, ti m e, o r any f acts abou t the offen ses). Oth erc i r cui ts have a l so s ug g es te d tha t th e g o ve r nm en t bear s the bur den ofpro ofunder the di ffer ent o ccasi o ns i nqui r y o r tha t ana m bi g uo us r ec o r d i s i ns uffi ci en t to su st ain an A C C A e n h a n c em en t. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. G illies , 8 51 F
. 2d 49 2, 4 97( 1s t Ci r . 1988) (“ [ Bec au se the defe nd ant a l so had tw o convi cti ons f orrob b er i es, ] ev en i f
. . . the t wo b ur g l ar y c o nv i ctio ns s te m m ed f r o m o ne
‘ epi so de’
. . . the g o ve r nm en t st i l l pr o ve d thr ee ‘ vi o l en t fel ony ’ convictions as requ ired by § 924 (e). ”); U nited St at e s v. Ri de out, 3 F. 3d 32, 35 (2d Cir. 199 3 ) (“[W ]e rej ect Rideo ut’ s cl ai m that the Gover nm ent p resente d i ns uffi ci ent e vi den ce t o de m o ns tr at e th atthe t r i g g er i ng o ff en se s wer e di st i nc t. The Di st r i ctCo ur t ha d the ce r ti fi ed re co r ds o fthe pr i o r s ta te c o nv i ct i o ns , a nd the Gov ernm en t i nt r o duce d e vi den ce o fthe di st an ce a nd tr av el t im e b et w ee n t h e t w o h om es .”); U nited Sta tes v. Brown , 24 1 F ed. A pp x. 89 0, 89 4- 95 ( 3d Cir. 2007 ) ( re m an di ngACCA -enhanc ed se nt en ce due t o the g o ve r nm ent’ s f ai l ure to m eet“i ts burden und er t h e AC CA to pr o ve tha t B r o wn ha s be enc o nv i ct ed o fthr ee s er i o us drug o ff enses o r vi ol ent fel oni es com m i tte d on se parat e oc c as ion s” be c au se “ [ b ]as ed on th e re c or d as it st an d s, it i s i m possibl e t o c onclude thatBro w n w as convi cted o f thre e o ff enses ‘ com m i tte d on oc casi ons di ffer ent fro mN o. 11

- 2507 33

o n e a n o th er . . . ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e Roo , 1 3 F e d
. Appx. 436, 43 8 ( 8th Ci r. 20 01) ( vacat i ng AC CA

- enhanced sente nce and rem anding case f orfurther e xam i nati on o fpri or convi cti ons because the re cor d did n ot r eve al“whether ther e w er e s epara te burgl ar i es i n 198 9 o r w hetherthey w ere p art of a c o n t inu ou s cou rse of crim inal cond uc t”); Taylo r, 413 F.3d at 115 7-58 (r e m an d ing case w he re di st r i ctc o ur t m ayha ve r el i ed upo n n o n- Sh epa rd

a pp r o v e d s o u r c e s t o d e t e r mi n e th a to ffe n s e s w e r e c o mm itted on sep arate occ asions so th at th e d istrict cou rt c o u l d “ d e t e r mi n e w h e th e r th e g o v e r n me n tc a n p r o v i de evi dence r ega rdi ng Tayl or ’ s pri orvi ol ent c ri m e co nvi cti o ns c o ns i st en t wi th Sh epa rd
. . . ”); Th o m as , 5 72 F. 3d at 95 0 ( “ [ E ] ve nas su m in g it w as p er m itt ed to rev isit Thom as’s AC CA s ta tu s, the di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n c o ncl ud i ng the Gover nm ent pr ese nted i nsuffi ci ent e vi dence that the tw o pr ed icate drug offenses were ‘ com m i tte d o n o c c a s i o n s d i ff e r e n t f r o m o n e a n o th e r ’
. . . . T h e t wo i nd i ctm ents off er ed i n the seco nd s en tenci ng sa ti sfi ed th e ev i den ti ar y r equi r ement s se t o uti n Ta ylo r an d Sh epa rd
. ”) ( intern al ci tation om itted ). Onl y the F i ftha nd Ni nth Ci r cui ts ha ve c i te d the bur dens hi fti ng sche m e se t f o r thi n H udspeth , U nited St at e s v. Bookm an , 263 Fed
. A p p x. 398, 400 n .1 (5th Cir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 263 Fe d . A p p x . 4 0 2 , 4 04 n .1 (5t h C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Phi l l ips , 14 9 F
. 3d 1026 , 10 33 ( 9t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) , y e t n e i th e r c i r c u i t h a s a p p l i e d i t a s t he g o ve r nm en t as k s us t o i n thi s ca se . Ra th ertha n pl ac i ng the b urden on the defendant to put for th ev i dence that the pr i oro ff ense oc curr ed on the sa m e o ccasi on, bo th ci rcui ts have i nd i cate d that the go ver nm ent m ust34 N o. 11

- 2507

W e no te tha t in discu ssing w he the r the d efend an t m e t his 13 bu rden regarding the diff erentoccas ion s inquir y, the Bookman op inio n re p eate d ly re ferenc es U ni t ed S tates v. Barl ow , a ca se in whi c h the F i fth Ci rcui t hel d tha to nc e the g ov e r nme nte s t a b- 

### (continued...) pr o vi de ev i den ce tha t th e o ffen se s o cc ur r ed o n di ffer en t occa si ons, and the defe nd ant then bea rs the bu rd en o f c h alle n gin g t h at e v i d en c e. Se ePhi l l ips , 14 9 F
. 3d at 1033 ( “The g ov er nm ent c ar ri ed i ts burden ofpro vi ng bya preponderanc e o fthe evi dence thatPhi l l i ps com m i tte d th r ee p red i ca te o ff en se s ‘ o n o cc as i o ns di ffer en t f r o m o ne anothe r. ’ I t di d so b y s ubm i tti ng unchal l enged, cer ti fi ed re c or d s o f co n vic tio n an d o t h e r c lea rly relia b le e vidence.
. . . The bu rden then shi fted to Phi l l i ps to chal l enge th e g o ve r nm en t’ s ev i den ce . ”) ( i nt erna l c i ta ti o ns o m i tt ed). I n Bo okm an , f orexam ple , the gov er nm ent s ubm i tte d Sh ep a rd

- appr o ve d do cument s th ati ndi ca te d tha t th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r i o r co nv i c t i o n s w e r e f o r o ffe n s e s c o mm i tte d on di ff er ent date s a nd i nvol ved di ffer ent v i cti m s. 263 Fed
. A p p x. at 399. T he de fend a n t a r gu ed , how ever, th at th e “ d oc u m en ts p r o v id ed by th e G ov er n m en t d id not suffi ci entl y e stabl i sh thath is p rio r burgl ar i es had been com m i tte d on di ffer ent date s be cause the ind i ctm ents al l ege d o nl y that the o ffenses o ccurr ed ‘ on o r ab out’ cer tai n dates, noto n any speci fi c dates
. ” Id. The Fi fth Ci r c ui tr ej e c t e d the de fe nd a nt ’ s “ a t t e mpt [ ] t o i nt ro duce unc er ta i nty a s to the da te o fthe offe ns es , ” an d concl ud ed that th e d efendant had not m et hi s bur den because he “ provi ded no evi dence th at h i s bur gl ar i es occurred si m ult aneousl y[
. ] ” Id. a t4 0 1
. T hu s , the ACCA 13N o. 11

- 2507 35



### (...continued) l i s he s the f a c to fa pr i orc on vi c t i on, the de f e nd a ntm us tpr ov e the i nval i di t y of the c onvi c t i on by the pre ponde ra nc e of the evi denc e. 17 F. 3d 85, 89 ( 5th Ci r. 19 94 ) ( c i t i ng P arke v. R al ey, 506 U
. S. 20, 113 S. Ct. 517 , 1 2 1 L
. Ed
. 2d 391 ( 1992) )
. As ex plained abov e, w hil e we agree that the def endan t bears t h e b urd en ofprov ing the i nvalidity ofprior convictio ns, w hich are presu m p tiv el y v a l i d , Parke, 5 0 6 U. S
. a t2 9

- 3 0 , 1 1 3 S
. C t
. 5 1 7, we bel i eve thatthe bur den ofpr ooff or the di ffe re ntoc c as i ons requir em ent is a diff erentm att er. Our r ec en topi ni on i n Uni t e d S t a t e s v . S i ms , N o. 11-35 50 , slip 14 o p . at 3- 5, 2012 W L 2370107, at *1- 2 ( 7th Cir. J une 25, 20 1 2 ), acco rd s w i t h th e d ifferen t occa sion s inqu iry as ap p lied in Bookman , Tayl or, a nd Phil ips . I n Si ms , the gov ernm ent subm it ted (co n tin u ed ...) en h an c em en t w as ap p ro p r iat e b ec au se th e d efe n d an t d id not re fute the gov er nm ent’ s evi dence i nd i cating tha t th e offen se s occ u rre d on d iffe r e n t oc c as ion s. Id. ; see also Taylo r, 26 3 Fed. A pp x. at 404- 05 ( affi rm i ng A CC A enhancem en t wher e th e i ndi ct m en ts a nd j udgm en ts f o r the two b ur g l ar y c o nv i ct i o ns c ha l l en g ed bythe de fendan t es tabl i sh ed th atthe t wo o ffen ses to o kpl ac e ni ne months apartand the d efendant did notput f or th any ev i dence that the o ff enses o ccurr ed si m ult an eousl y)
. S i m i l ar l y, i n P hi l l ips , the Ni nth Ci r c ui tc o nc l ud e d tha tthe ACCA enha nc ementwas a ppr o pr i ate b ec au se the g o ve r nm en t had subm i tte d rel i abl e e vi dence thatthe defe n dant had c o mmi t t e d r o b b e r i e s i n v o l v i n gt wo d i ffe r e n tv i c t i ms ( i n a ddi ti o n t o a th i r d pr i o r fel o ny c o nv i ct i o n) , a nd the d efenda ntf ai l ed to s ubmi t ev i den ce c ha l l en g i ngthe gov er nm ent’ s e vi dence. 14 9 F
. 3d at 1032
. 1436 N o. 11

- 2507

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 14 evi denc e estab l i s hi ng thatthe defen dant ’ s t wo pri or fel ony c onvi c t i on s a ti s s ue were f or off en s es s epa ra t ed by a wee k, an d the d e fe n d an t d id no t cha lleng e tha t ev id en ce or sub m it any evide n ce t hat wo uld supp ort a finding thatthe off ense s o cc u r r e d o n th e sa m e o cc a sio n . Id. Gi v e n th i s r e c o r d, we con clu d ed t h at it w as ap p ro p riate for th e d istrict cou rt to tr ea t th e t w o o ffen se s a s se p a ra te
. Id. Despit e hav i ng ci ted the b u rd en shi fti ng sc hem e s et forth i n H udspeth , b o th the F i fth a nd the Ni nth c i r c ui ts have decl i ned to apply the AC CA enhancem ent when fac ed w ith an inc on c lu siv e re c or d
. S e e F u ller, 45 3 F
. 3d a t 2 79 ; U nited Sta tes v. M cE lyea , 15 8 F
. 3d 10 16 ( 9th C ir. 19 98 )
. I n Fuller, the defendant ar gued that hi s t w o pri or b u r g l a r y c o n v i c t i o n s fr o m t h e s a me d a y w e r e n o tc o mm i tte d on se parat e o ccasi ons because he a n d an a ccom pli ce had e nter ed the tw o bui l dings si m ult aneousl y. Id. a t 2 78. Based o n the sta te cour t ind i ctm ents

— th e onl y Sh epa rd -app roved eviden ce in t he record

— the F i fth Cir cui t held that i t co uld not“dete rm i ne as a m att ero f law th a t t h e b u rg lar ies oc c u rre d on d iffer en t o c c as ion s.” Id. at2 79
. The F i fthCi r cui t no te d tha t th e defen dan t m ay have been convi cted “e ven i fh e w as o n l y a party t o th e cri m e, ” a nd “[ b] ecause the re cor d [di d] no t co ntain the wri tte n ple a agr eem ent, the ple a co l l oquy, o r othe r Sh epa rd

- approve d m ate ri althatm i ght res olve thi s questio n, ” i t v acat ed the defe nd ant’ s s entence with r espect to th e A C C A en h an c em en t. Id. at 27 9-8 0. A s i n Fu ller, the de fen dan t i n M cE lyea h a d t wo pri orburg l ar y c onvi cti ons that the di str i ct c ou rt used asN o. 11

- 2507 37 predi cate fel oni es f orthe A CC A enhancem ent. 15 8 F
. 3d at 1018
. The defe nd ant ar gued, though, that the con vi cti ons w er e no t “c om m itte d on oc casi ons differ ent fro m one anothe r. ” Id. The r eco rd i nd i cate d that the def endant and an acc om pli ce b ro ke i nto a s tor e that was p ar t o f a st rip m all, an d th at a h ole w as cu t in th e w all shared with a notherst or e, and i tem s were sto l en fro m bo ths to r es , r es ul tingi n the de fen d an t’s t wo c o nv i ct i o ns f or bu rg lar y. Id. T h e Ni n th C i r c u i t, i n a s p l i td e c i si o n, not ed that “ t h e r ecord
. . . [ d id] not con tain an y i nform ati on r ega rdi ng the am ount o fti m e [ the defen dant] sp en t in each st ore or w he th er he stay ed i n on e store w hi l e hi s a ccom pli ce e ntered the other sto re . ” Id. at10 21. The N i nth Cir cuit concl ud ed that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n a p p l y i n gth e AC C A e n h a n c e me n tb e c a u s e “ we ca nno t sa y tha t th e bur g l ar i es c o m m i tt ed by[ the de fen dant] w er e ‘ separ ate cr i m i nal epi sodes[
. ] ’ ” Id. Thus, al th o ug h the F i ftha nd Ni nth Ci r cui ts have c i te d the burden shi fti ng sc hem e s et f or th i n the H udspeth f oo tnot e, we b el i ev e th atthe c o nc l us i o n w e r ea cht o dayi s i n l i ne wi thb o thc i r cui t’s pr ec ede ntr eg ar di ngthe di ffer en t occa si ons i nquir y. I n hol ding that the g ove rnm ent b ear s the bur den of proving bythe preponderance o fthe evi denc e that a defe nd ant’ s pri or convi cti ons w er e “co m m i tte d o n oc cas i o n s d i ff e r e n tfr o m o n e a n o th e r ” u n d e r § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) , we affi rm that“[ a] defendant w ho has the opportu n ity to ce a s e a nd de s i s to r wi thd r a w fr o m hi s c r i mi na l a c t i vi ty at any t i m e, but w ho choose s to com m i t a dd i ti onalcr i m es, des er ve s ha r sher puni sh m en t th anthe c r i m i na l who com m i ts m ult i ple cr i m es si m ult aneousl y. ” H udspeth ,38 N o. 11

- 2507

Bec aus e we c onc l ude thatthe burden s hi ft i ng s c he m e f ro m 15 H u d sp eth upon whic h the di s t ri c tc our t ’ s dec i s i on re l i ed i s no l onge r t en abl e, w e ne ed notrea c h K i rk l and’ s se c ond a rg um en t on appe al thatthe di s trict cour te rr ed i n de nyi ng a dm i s s i on ofhi s affi davi tan d t es t i m ony.

7- 24- 12 42 F
. 3d at1 02 1. Nev er th el es s, we be l i ev e th at ana m bi g uo us r ec o r d re g ar di ngw he th era de fen dan t ac tu al l y ha d the oppor t un i t y “ t o c e a s e a nd de s i s to r wi thd r a w fr om hi s cr i m i na l a ct i vi ty ” do es no t su ffi ce t o s uppo r t th e A CC A enhancem ent. 15

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe f or ego i n g re aso ns, we R EV ERSE the j ud gm ent o f the di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd R EMA ND the c as e f o r r es en te nc i ng i n a cc o r dan ce wi ththi s o pi ni o n.