# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 30 78

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ro be rt Ke it h C rav en s,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

,

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

12 , 20 18

Fi le d: Ju ly 2, 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ro be rt Keit h Crav en s so ug ht po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f on th e gr ou nd th at hi s 21 6-

m on th pr is on se nt en ce un de r th e Arm ed Care er Crim in al Act (“ ACCA”)

, 18 U.S.C.

§ 92 4( e)(1 ), was im

po se d in vi ol at io n of th e Co ns ti tu ti on an d in ex c e s s of th e

m ax im um au th o r i z e d b y la w. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed rel ie f, bu t su bs eq ue nt

de ci si on s ha ve es t a b l is he d th at Crav en s di d no t ha ve th ree pr io r co nv ic ti on s th atqu al ifi ed hi m fo r en ha nc ed pu ni sh m en t un de r th e st at ut e. W e th eref or e rev ers e an d

rem an d fo r th e d is tri ct co ur t t o g ran t re li ef an d re se nt en ce Cr av en s.

Crav en s pl ead ed gu il ty in 20 10 to a two -co un t in di ct m en t. Co un t Two ch arg ed

un la wfu l po ss es si on of a f i r e a r m by a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on

, an d al le ge d th at

en ha nc ed pu ni sh m en t was warra nt ed un de r th e ACC A f o r a m in im

um te rm of 15

y ears an d a m ax im

um of li fe im

pr is on m en t. Se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( e)(1 ).

The ot he r co un t char ge d un la wfu l po ss es si on of a fir earm as b ot h a dru g u se r an d a

fel o n

, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ) an d (3 ), bu t di d no t al le ge en ha nc ed

pu ni sh m en t, so th e st at ut or y m ax im um te r m was 10 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t. Se e id

.

§ 9 24 (a)( 2)

.

A de fen da nt is su bjec t to an en ha nc ed se nt en ce un de r th e ACCA if he ha s th ree

or m or e pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r a vi ol en t fel on y o r a s eri ou s dr ug of fen se

. Id

.

§ 92 4( e)(1 ). At Crav en s’s se nt en ci ng

, th e di st ric t co ur t a do pt ed th e pr es en te nc e

rep or t an d th ereb y fo un d th at Crav en s qu al ifi ed fo r th e en ha nc em en t ba se d on th ree

pr io r co nv ic ti on s: (1 ) Ill in oi s bu rg la ry in 1 9 98

, (2 ) Mi ss ou ri as sa ul t on a la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic er in 20 04

, an d (3 ) Mi ss ou ri bu rg la ry in 20 08

. 1 The co ur t se nt en ced

Crav en s to 21 6 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d fiv e y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e un de r th e

ACCA, an d to a c o n c u rren t te rm of 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d th ree y ears of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e o n t he ot he r co un t o f co nv ic ti on

.

Afte r th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld in Jo h n s o n v

. U n it ed St at es

, 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51

(2 01 5)

, th at th e res id ua l clau se of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii ) is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

1 The pa rti es su gg es te d in th e di st ric t cou rt th at a 20 10 co nv ic ti on fo r se co nd

de gr ee do m es ti c as sa ul t in Mi ss ou ri was a fo ur th pr ed ic at e of fen se

. The pr es en te nc e

r e p o r t

, ho wev er, di d no t rel y on th is co nv ic ti on fo r th e ACCA en ha nc em en t, a n d

Crav en s was co nv ic te d of th e do m es ti c as sa ul t af te r he co m

m it te d th e of

fen se at is su e

he re, so it wou ld no t qu al ify. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ta ll ey

, 16 F.3 d 97 2, 97 7 (8 th Ci r.

19 94 ).

-2

-va gu e, Crav en s m ov ed to va cat e h i s s en te nc e. 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 pr ov id es th at th e

co ur t sh ou ld gr an t ap pr op ria te rel ie f if “ th e se nt en ce im po se d was no t au th or iz ed by

la w or ot he rwis e op en to co ll at eral at ta ck

, or

. . . th e r e h a s be en su ch a de ni al or

i nf rin ge m en t of th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of th e pr is on er as to ren de r th e jud g men t

vu ln erab le to co ll at eral at ta ck .” Id

. § 22 55 (b ). Crav en s arg ue d th at hi s con vi ct io ns

fo r Mi ss ou ri s eco nd -d eg ree b ur gl ary an d Ill in oi s bu rg la ry were no t v io le nt fel on ie s

un de r th e ACCA in li gh t of Jo hn so n

. He ur ge d th at be cau se he di d no t ha ve th ree

pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r a vi ol e n t f e lo ny, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m

un co ns ti tu ti on al ly and in ex ces s o f th e st at ut or y m ax im um

.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed rel ie f, co nc lu di ng th at Crav en s st il l ha d at le as t th ree

qu al ifyin g co nv ic ti on s un de r th e ACCA. W e ha ve si nc e he ld

, ho wev er, th at ne it he r

Ill in oi s bu rg la ry no r Mi ss ou ri se co nd -d eg ree bu rg la ry are vi ol en t fel on ie s un de r th e

ACCA. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Bya s , 87 1 F.3 d 84 1, 84 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (p er cu ria m );

Uni te d St at es v. Na

yl or

, 88 7 F.3 d 39 7, 40 6- 07 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 8 ) ( e n b a nc ). W e th us

co nc lu de —a n d t h e go ve rn m en t co nc ed es —t ha t Crav en s do es no t ha ve th ree

qu al ifyin g pr io r c o n vi ct io ns an d was im pr op erl y se nt en ced as an arm ed care er

cri m in al

. Crav en s’s 21 6- m on th se nt en ce on Co un t Two ex ceed s th e 12 0- m on t h

st at ut or y m ax im um th at sh ou ld ha ve ap pl ie d u nd er § 92 4( a)(2 ).

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s, ho wev er, th at Crav en s is no t en ti tl ed to res en te nc in g,

be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d ha v e i mp o s e d th e sa m e 21 6- m on th se nt en ce by

or de rin g Crav en s’s se nt en ces on th e t wo co un ts of co nv ic ti on to be se rv ed

co ns ecu ti ve ly rath er t ha n c on cu rren tl y

. In Su n Bear v. Uni te d S ta te s , 64 4 F .3d 70 0

( 8 t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ), we rel ie d on a rel at ed rat io na le in de nyin g rel ie f to a

m ov an t who arg ue d th at he was im pr op erl y se nt en ced as a care er of fen de r un de r th e

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

, USSG § 4B 1.2

. Su n Bea r

, 64 4 F.3 d at 70 4- 06

. W e reas on ed

th at th e m ov an t di d no t ha ve a co gn iz ab le cl ai m un de r § 22 55 whe re “ th e sa m e 36 0-

m on th se nt en ce cou ld be rei m po se d” if th e co ur t gr an te d th e req ue st ed rel ie f. Id

. at

-3

-70 5. W e em

ph as iz ed

, ho wev er, th at th e al le ge d erro r un de r th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

was ne it he r co ns ti tu ti on al no r juri sd ic ti on al in na tu re, th at “ th e pe rm is si bl e sc op e of

a § 22 55 co ll at eral at ta ck on a f i n a l c o nv ic ti on or se nt en ce is se ve rel y li m it ed ”

ou ts id e th e co nt ex t of juri sd ic ti on al an d co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs

, id

. at 70 4, an d th at th e

m ov an t’s se nt en ce w a s well wit hi n th e st at ut or y m ax im um te rm au th or iz ed fo r hi s

of fen se of c on vi ct io n. Id

. at 7 05

.

Unl ik e th e m ov an t in Su n Bea r

, Crav en s ha s es ta bl is he d th at hi s se nt en ce was

bo th in ex ces s of th e st at ut or y m ax im um an d im

po se d in vi ol at io n of th e Co ns ti tu ti on

be cau se it was ba se d on th e ACCA’s u n c o n st it ut io na ll y va gu e res id ua l cl au se

.

Crav en s’s cl ai m of co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is co gn iz ab le un de r § 22 55

, an d he is en ti tl ed

to rel ie f un le ss th e err or was h arm le ss

.

A co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is ha rm le ss in a po st -co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in g if the erro r

di d no t ha ve “s ub st an ti al an d in juri ou s effe ct or in flu en ce” on th e ou tc om e of th e

pr oc eed in g an d ca

use d no “ act ua l pr ejud ic e” to th e de fen da nt

. Brec ht v. Abr ah ams on

,

5 0 7 U.S. 61 9, 63 7 (1 99 3) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e Uni te d St at e s v

.

Cl ay

, 72 0 F.3 d 10 21

, 10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (ap pl y in g Brec ht in a § 22 55 pr oc eed in g)

.

W he n th e reco rd is ev en ly ba la nc ed as t o w h e t h e r a co ns ti tu ti on al erro r ha d

su bs ta nt ia l an d in

juri ou s effe ct or in flu en ce on th e ou tc om e, th e erro r is no t ha rm le ss

.

O’Nea l v. McAn in ch , 51 3 U.S. 4 32 , 43 5 (1 99 5)

.

Alt ho ug h it is t ru e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d ha ve el ect ed to im po se a 21 6-

m on th se nt en ce in th e or ig in al pr oc eed in g by ru nn in g th e two s e n t e n c es

co ns ecu ti ve ly, we can no t sa y wit h fai r as su ran ce th at th e co ur t wou ld ha ve do ne so

.

W it ho ut th e ACCA en ha nc em en t, th e a d v i s or y se nt en ci ng gu id el in es wou ld ha ve

reco m m en de d a se nt en ci ng ran ge of 16 8 to 21 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, so th e co ur t

wou ld h a ve be en req ui red to de pa rt or va ry up ward to reac h a te rm of 21 6 m on th s.

The di st ric t co ur t ne ve r sa id t h at it wou ld ha ve im po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce wit ho ut

th e en ha nc em en t, an d it se em ed to si g n a l t h e co nt rary in th e po st -co nv ic ti on

-4

-pr oc eed in g. In it s or de r de nyin g r e l i e f u n d e r § 22 55 , t he co ur t sa id th at “ [w]ith ou t

th e Ill in oi s bu rg l a r y c o n v ic ti on as a th ird ACCA pr ed ic at e, th en

, Crav en s was

im pr op erl y se n t e n c e d a nd mer it s re li ef .” Asi de fro m th e te rm of im pr is on m en t,

m or eo ve r, it is cl ear th at th e ACCA en ha nc em en t affe ct ed th e le ng th of th e fiv e-year

te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W it ho ut § 92 4( e), th e m ax im um te rm on e a c h c o u n t

wou ld ha ve be en th ree y ears

, se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( a)(2 ), 35 59 (a)( 3)

, 35 83 (b )(2 ), an d

th e two te rm s wou ld ha ve ru n co nc ur ren tl y

. Id

. § 36 24 (e). On th is reco rd

, th eref or e,

we are pe rs ua de d th at th e co ns ti tu ti on al erro r ha d a su bs ta nt ia l effe ct or in flu en ce on

th e se nt en ce i m

po se d. 2

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we rev ers e an d rem an d wit h di rect io ns to res en te nc e

Crav en s wit ho ut th e en ha nc em en t un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). W e ex pr es s n o v i e w,

ho wev er, on wha t se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld im po se

. W e ho ld on ly t ha t th e

reco rd be fo re us fai ls to es ta bl is h th at th e co ns t i t ut io na l erro r at th e or ig in al

se nt en ci ng was h arm le ss

.

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

2 In an un pu bl is he d op in io n, Olt en v. Uni te d St at es

, 56 5 F. App ’x 55 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 ) (p er cu ria m ), a pa ne l of th i s c o u rt de ni ed a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y fo r a

m ov an t who was erro ne ou sl y se nt en ced un de r th e ACCA ba se d on a st at ut or y erro r

rev eal ed in Des ca mps v. Uni te d St at es

, 57 0 U.S. 25 4 (2 01 3)

. O l te n reas on ed th at

be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d re-i m po se th e s a me t o t a l pu ni sh m en t “ by i m po si ng

co ns ecu ti ve te rm s of im

pr is on m en t fo r th e two co un ts of co nv ic ti on ,” th e m ov an t was

no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f. 56 5 F. App ’x a t 5 6 1

. Olt en di d no t in vo lv e a co ns ti tu ti on al

erro r, so it s reas on in g is in ap pl ic ab le he re, an d w e n e e d no t ex pr es s a vi ew on

whe th er Olt en was c or rect ly deci de d.

-5

-