# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 26 26

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Dev on te Darn el l Ho ls to n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 4, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Dev on te Hol st on pl ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a f ire arm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( e). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Hol st on 1

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.to 18 0 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, fi nd in g t ha t h e q ua li fie d fo r th e m an da to ry -m in im um

se nt en ce im

po se d by t he Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e), ba se d on th ree pr io r co nv ic ti on s in W is co ns in st at e co ur t fo r bu rg la ry of a bu il di ng

or dwe ll in g in vi ol at io n of W is

. St at

. § 94 3.1 0( 1m )(a)

. Hol st o n ap pe al s, an d we affi rm

.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n of whe th er [Ho ls to n’s] cri m in al reco rd qu al ifi ed hi m as an Arm ed C a r e er Cri m in al .” Uni te d St at es v. W il lo ug hb y , 65 3 F

. 3 d 73 8, 74 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The ACCA m an da to ry -m in im um

se nt en ce ap pl ie s to an in di vi du al co nv ic te d of a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) who

“ ha s th ree pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s

. . . fo r a vi ol en t fel on y or a se rio us dr ug of fen se , or bo th
, co m

m it te d on oc cas io ns di ffer en t from on e an ot he r.” § 92 4( e)(1 ). Unl ik e th e bu lk of ou r pr eced en t in te rp ret in g th is se ct io n, th e th ru st of th is ap pe al co nc ern s th e
qu es ti on of whet he r th e co nd uc t un de rlyin g two of Hol st on ’s pri or co nv ic ti on s was

co m m it te d on di ffer en t occa si on s. In 2 01 3, Ho ls to n pl ed gu il ty in W is co ns in st at e 2

co ur t to a cri m in al co m

pl ai nt ch arg in g hi m wit h 2 co un ts of bu rg la ry

. The co m pl ai nt in di cat es th at Hol st on an d two co de fen da nt s bu rg le d res id en ces at tw o s e p a r at e ad dr es se s, an d th e as so ci at ed jud gm en t sh ows res ti tu ti on owe d to two di ffer en t vi ct im s. Hol st on in s is ts th at th is was a si ng le cri m in al ep is od e an d th at th es e two i n c i d e nt s th eref

or e co un t on ly as on e pr ev io us co nv ic ti on fo r th e pu rp os e o f

qu al ifyin g h im

as a n a rm ed care er cr im in al

.

Hol st on br ie fly arg ue s th at th e bu rg la ry st at ut e un de r whi ch he was co nv ic te d 2 do es no t m eet th e de fin it io n of “ vi ol en t fel on y ” fo un d in § 92 4( e)(2 )(B)
, bu t he

co nc ed es th at we he ld to th e co nt rary i n Un it ed Sta te s v . Lam b, 8 47 F.3 d 92 8, 93 2, 93 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ), cert . d en ie d, 13 8 S. Ct

. 1 4 3 8 (2 01 8)

. Giv en ou r “ card in al ru le

. . . th at on e pa ne l is bo un d by th e de ci si on of a pr io r pa ne l,” Mad er v. Uni te d St at es , 65 4 F.3 d 7 94 , 80 0 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ) (en ba nc ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) , we reject th is arg um en t.

-2

-Hol st on arg ue s th at , to res ol ve th is in qu iry, th e di st ric t co u r t i s l i mite d to

in ve st ig at in g th e do cu m en ts ap pr ov ed of by th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Sh ep ard v. Uni te d
St at es , 54 4 U.S. 13 (2 00 5)
, an d th at th e co m pl ai nt is no t in cl ud ed in th os e do cu m en ts

. Howev er, in th e co nt ex t of Si xt h Am en dm en t ch al le ng es , we ha ve ex pr es sl y reject ed th is arg um en t an d he ld th at Sh ep ard is in ap pl ic ab le whe n de te rm in in g whe th e r th e

co nd uc t un de rlyin g pr io r co nv ic ti on s was co m m it te d on di ffer en t oc cas io ns

. See 3
Uni te d St at es v. Eva ns , 73 8 F.3 d 93 5, 93 6- 37 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Uni te d St at e s v. Ri ch ard so n, 48 3 F. App ’x 30 2, 30 4- 05 & n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Acco rd in gl y , we m ay 4
vi ew bo th th e co m

pl ai nt an d th e un ob

jecte d- to po rti on s of Hol st on ’s pr e se nt en ce in ve st ig at io n rep or t (“ PSR” ) to de te rm in e whe th er th es e bu rg la rie s were co m m it te d

on di ffer en t o ccas io ns

. 5

“ Pri or co nv ic ti on s m

us t be se pa rat e an d di st in ct cri m in al ep is od es [t]o qu al ify

as pr ed i c a t e o f

f en se s un de r th e st at ut e.” Pl ed ge , 82 1 F.3 d at 10 38 (al te rat io n in

or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ Cri m es oc cu rri ng ev en m in ut es ap art

can qu al ify, ho wev er, if th ey ha ve di ffer en t vi ct im s an d a r e co m m it te d in di ffer en t

W e no te th at , ev en if Sh ep ard ap pl ie d so as to p r e c l u d e co ns id erat io n of 3
cert ai n do cu m en ts in de te rm in in g whe th er th e co nd uc t un de rlyin g Hol s t o n ’s p rio r
co nv ic ti on s was co m

m it te d on se pa rat e oc cas io ns , we co nc lu de th at th e c o mpla in t,

as red act ed , wou ld be rev ie wab le un de r Sh ep ard

.
To th e ex te nt th ere is an y co nf li ct be twee n Eva ns an d ou r de ci si on in Uni te d 4 St at es v. Pl ed ge , 82 1 F.3 d 10 35
, 10 38 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 7 S. Ct

. 25 8 (2 01 6)
, Eva ns co nt ro ls un de r th e fi rs t-i n- ti m e ru le . See Ma de r, 65 4 F .3d at 8 00

. Hol st on vi go ro us ly co nt es te d th e PSR’s reco m m en da ti on th at he be se nt en ced 5

as an arm ed care er cri m in al
, bu t he di d no t di sp ut e an y of th e u n d erl y in g fact ua l

m at te rs co nt ai ne d in th e PSR. As su ch
, we m ay acce pt th os e fact s as tru e. See Uni te d St at es v. Dou gl as , 64 6 F.3 d 11 34
, 11 37 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ If a de fen da nt ob jects on ly to th e PSR’s reco m

m en da ti on , bu t no t to th e fact s th em se lv es , th e co ur t m ay acce pt th e fact s as tru e an d rel y on th e un ob jecte d- to fact s in de te rm in in g whe th er to im po se
an en ha nc em en t.”)

. -3

-lo cat io ns .” Uni te d St at es v. Dero o, 30 4 F.3 d 82 4, 82 8 (8 th Cir . 20 02 ). I n th e pa st ,

we ha ve lo ok ed to th e fo ll owi ng th ree fact or s “ in de ci di ng w h e t h e r of fen se s are

su ffi ci en tl y se pa rat e an d di st in ct to se rv e as in di vi du al pr ed ic at e co nv ic t i o ns fo r ACCA en ha nc em en t: (1 ) th e ti m e la ps e b et ween off en se s, (2 ) th e ph y si cal di st an ce be twee n th ei r oc cu rren ce, an d (3 ) th ei r la ck of ov eral l su bs ta nt iv e co nt in ui ty, a fact or th at i s o f t en de m on st rat ed in th e vi ol en t-f el on y co nt ex t by di ffer en t vi ct im s or di ffer en t ag gr es si on s.” Will ou gh by, 653 F.3d at 7 42 -4 3.

W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co un te d Hol st on ’s co nv ic ti on fo r
two c o u n t s o f bu rg la ry as two pr io r co nv ic ti on s. Fi rs t, al th ou gh th e co m pl ai nt in di cat es th at bo th of

fen se s oc cu rred at 2: 00 in th e aft ern oo n, th is is no t di sp os it iv e. See id

. at 74 3 (“ [T]o pr ov e th at two of fen se s are su ffi ci en tl y se pa rat e an d di st in ct fo r AC C A p u r p o s es , it is su

ff ic ie nt (al th ou gh
, no t ne ces sa ry ) to sh ow th at so m e ti m e el ap se d be twee n th e two pr os pe ct iv e pr ed ic at e of fen se s.”)

. Seco nd
, Hol st on pl ed
gu il ty t o bu rg li ng two se pa rat e res id en ces

. See Pl ed ge , 82 1 F.3 d at 10 37

. Fi na ll y ,
an d p e r h a ps m os t im

po rta nt ly in th is cas e, th ere were two di ffer en t vi ct im s, as

ev id en ced by Hol st on owi ng di ffer en t am ou nt s o f res ti tu ti on to each reci pi en t. See
Dero o, 30 4 F.3 d at 82 8. Thu s, lo ok in g on ly at th e co m pl ai n t an d jud gm en t, we be li ev e th at th es e two in ci de nt s were “ su ffi ci en tl y se pa rat e an d di st in ct ” to qu al ify as

se pa rat e cri m in al ep is od es . W il lo ug hb y , 65 3 F .3d at 7 42

. 6

Bec au se he “ ha s th ree pr ev i o u s c o n v i ct io ns

. . . fo r a vi ol en t fel on y

. . .
co m m it te d o n oc cas io ns di ffer en t fro m on e an ot he r,” § 92 4( e)(1 ), th e di st ric t co ur t
pr op erl y sen te nc ed Hol st on as a n a rm ed care er cr im in al . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Thi s co nc lu si on is co nf

irmed by a gl an ce at th e un ob jecte d- to fact s in th e PSR, 6 whi ch in di cat e th at Hol st on , acco m pa ni ed by ot he r in di vi du al s, act ua ll y en te red bo th

res id en ces an d st ol e an 18 -in ch te le vi si on fro m o n e r es id en ce an d a 73 -in ch pr ojec ti on tel ev is io n fr om th e o th er.

-4

-