RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 23a0228p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LAWRENCE DEWAINE SCHUMAKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

┐

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

┘

No. 21-6250

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.

No. 3:15-cr-00139-1—Katherine A. Crytzer, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: October 12, 2023

Before: KETHLEDGE, THAPAR, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ON BRIEF: Erin P. Rust, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Chattanooga, 

Tennessee, for Appellant. Luke A. McLaurin, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 

Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION

_________________

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. After Lawrence Schumaker pleaded guilty to being a felon in 

possession of a firearm and the district court sentenced him, the government appealed the 

sentence because the district court did not sentence Schumaker in accordance with the Armed 

Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We remanded the case and instructed the 

district court to sentence Schumaker under the ACCA. The district court did just that. 

>
No. 21-6250 United States v. Schumaker Page 2

Now, Schumaker appeals, arguing that the district erred by following our instructions and 

following our precedent. We affirm.

I.

In 2016, Schumaker pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At the time, Schumaker had fourteen prior 

convictions for Tennessee aggravated burglary. The indictments and judgments for those 

convictions indicated that each involved separate structures and occurred on thirteen different 

dates. 

After our decision in United States v. Stitt, 860 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. 2017) (en banc), where 

we held that Tennessee aggravated burglary was not a violent felony and thus did not qualify as a 

predicate offense under the ACCA, the district court sentenced Schumaker to 54 months’ 

imprisonment. United States v. Schumaker, 820 F. App’x 378, 380 (6th Cir. 2020). The 

government appealed. While that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court reversed our decision 

in Stitt, concluding that Tennessee aggravated burglary qualified as an ACCA predicate offense. 

United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399, 406–07 (2018). 

Because the Supreme Court’s Stitt decision negated Schumaker’s principal argument that 

aggravated burglary was not an ACCA predicate offense, Schumaker raised several other 

arguments challenging the application of the ACCA. Schumaker, 820 F. App’x at 381–83. 

Pertinent here, Schumaker asserted that “his prior [aggravated burglary] offenses did not occur 

on separate occasions” for purposes of the ACCA’s occasions-different requirement. Id. at 381–

82; see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). We rejected this argument after considering the charging 

documents for his fourteen convictions and observing that “all, except for two, . . . were 

committed on different dates.” Schumaker, 820 F. App’x at 382–83. We reversed the district 

court’s prior sentence and remanded the case for the district court to sentence Schumaker under 

the ACCA. Id. at 383.

On remand, Schumaker lodged an objection to his presentence report in the wake of the 

Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022). He argued 

that, in conducting the occasions-different inquiry, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibited 
No. 21-6250 United States v. Schumaker Page 3

the district court from relying on the dates and locations of the aggravated-burglary offenses 

found in the judgments associated with those convictions because the dates and locations of the 

burglaries are non-elemental facts that the government had to prove to a jury. After finding the 

objection foreclosed by our precedent, the district court sentenced Schumaker under the ACCA. 

Schumaker timely appealed.

II.

The ACCA requires a district court to impose a sentence of at least fifteen years’ 

imprisonment on any person who violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and “has three previous 

convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions 

different from one another[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). In determining whether a defendant has 

committed offenses on “occasions different from one another,” courts consider the following 

factors: (1) the timing of the offenses—“offenses separated by substantial gaps in time or 

significant intervening events” would not count as part of one occasion; (2) proximity of location 

of the offenses— “the further away crimes take place, the less likely they are components of the 

same criminal event”; and (3) “the character and relationship of the offenses.” Wooden, 595 

U.S. at 369. When necessary and permitted, a sentencing judge may review certain documents 

to determine whether the occasions-different requirement is met. See Shepard v. United States, 

544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005); United States v. Hennessee, 932 F.3d 437, 442 (6th Cir. 2019) 

(discussing the application of Shepard to the occasions-different analysis). These documents, 

often referred to as “Shepard documents,” include the charging documents, written plea 

agreements, transcripts of plea colloquies, jury instructions, and the judgment itself. See Vowell 

v. United States, 938 F.3d 260, 269 (6th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). 

Schumaker does not dispute that his fourteen prior Tennessee aggravated-burglary 

convictions qualify as ACCA predicates. See Stitt, 139 S. Ct. at 406. Nor does Schumaker argue 

that the documents the district court considered were not Shepard documents. Indeed, on 

remand, the district court considered the judgments relating to his convictions, which showed 

that Schumaker committed his burglaries on separate dates. See Shepard, 544 U.S. at 16. And 

we previously reached the same conclusion. Schumaker, 820 F. App’x at 383. Now that the 

Supreme Court has decided Wooden, Schumaker reiterates the argument he made to the district 
No. 21-6250 United States v. Schumaker Page 4

court. Interestingly, the government agrees with Schumaker that non-elemental facts underlying 

the occasions-different inquiry must be proven to a jury.

The questions we must decide are: (1) whether we made a limited remand that required 

the district court to sentence Schumaker under the ACCA, and (2) whether our precedent bars 

Schumaker’s argument that the non-elemental facts in Shepard documents must be charged in an 

indictment and found by a jury before a district court may rely on those facts as part of the 

occasions-different inquiry. For the reasons set forth below, we answer both questions in the 

affirmative.

A.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2106, remands come in two flavors: general or limited. United States 

v. McFalls, 675 F.3d 599, 604 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Hunter, 646 F.3d 372, 374 

(6th Cir. 2011)). When we remand a case for resentencing under a general remand, a district 

court can “redo the entire sentencing process, including considering new evidence and issues.” 

Id. A limited remand, as the phrase suggests, limits the district court’s authority to adjudicating 

only certain issues on remand. Id. To determine whether a remand is general or limited, a court 

must “look to any ‘limiting language’ in the instructions on remand and the broader context of 

the opinion.” United States v. Patterson, 878 F.3d 215, 217 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United 

States v. O’Dell, 320 F.3d 674, 679–81 (6th Cir. 2003)). A remand order is “presumed to be 

general.” McFalls, 675 F.3d at 604 (citations omitted). “[T]o impose a limited remand, an 

appellate court must sufficiently outline the procedure the district court is to follow.” O’Dell, 

320 F.3d at 679 (quoting United States v. Campbell, 168 F.3d 263, 268 (6th Cir. 1999)). The 

district court and the parties should have no doubt about the scope of the remand for sentencing. 

Id. “The language used to limit the remand should be, in effect, unmistakable.” Id. Whether a 

remand is limited or general is a legal question that we review de novo. McFalls, 675 F.3d at 

604. 

Our remand order in Schumaker reflects a limited remand. Looking to the limiting 

language in Schumaker, we concluded our prior opinion by stating “we REVERSE and 

REMAND for resentencing under the ACCA.” 820 F. App’x at 383. Under similar 

circumstances, we have held that words like this are not “an invitation to start from scratch, . . . 
No. 21-6250 United States v. Schumaker Page 5

[nor] an invitation to conduct a new sentencing hearing.” Patterson, 878 F.3d at 218. Rather, 

the language unmistakably narrowed the district court’s scope of review on remand to 

“resentencing” Schumaker “under the ACCA.” Schumaker, 820 F. App’x at 383. The remand 

order left no room to entertain additional arguments that the ACCA should not apply. 

This reading is further supported by how we used the limiting language “in the context of 

the entire opinion.” Patterson, 878 F.3d at 218 (quoting Campbell, 168 F.3d at 267–68). 

We remanded the case to the district court for resentencing under the ACCA only after we: 

(1) rejected all three of Schumaker’s arguments that the district court should not resentence him 

under the ACCA, (2) concluded that Schumaker’s fourteen convictions for Tennessee aggravated 

burglary qualified as ACCA predicate offenses in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Stitt decision, 

and (3) observed that the relevant Shepard documents showed that “all, except for two” of the 

predicate offenses “were committed on different dates.” Schumaker, 820 F. App’x at 379–83. 

In Patterson, we found a similarly worded remand order to be a limited remand for nearly 

identical reasons. 878 F.3d at 216–18. There, after the defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon 

in possession of a firearm, the district court declined to sentence the defendant in accordance 

with the ACCA, finding that the defendant did not have three predicate ACCA offenses. Id. at 

217. We reversed the district court and remanded the case to the district court with the following 

mandate: “For these reasons, we . . . reverse the ruling that Patterson did not have three previous 

convictions for a violent felony, vacate Patterson’s sentence, and remand for resentencing.” Id.

at 218. On remand, the defendant raised an additional challenge to applying the ACCA. Id. at 

217. The district court declined to reach the defendant’s argument, stating: “I read the mandate 

from Sixth Circuit to be more narrow” because it “specifically ma[de] a finding that the 

Defendants should be sentenced as an armed career criminal.” Id. (alteration in original, 

quotation marks omitted). We affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the remand order was 

limited and thus precluded Patterson’s argument. Id. at 218. We also found that the relevant 

context supported this reading because the mandate came only after we determined that all 

requirements under the ACCA had been satisfied. Id.; see also United States v. Johnson, 

11 F.4th 529, 531 (6th Cir. 2021) (finding that an order remanding a case for resentencing was a 

limited remand because the broader context of the order showed that “we remanded the matter 
No. 21-6250 United States v. Schumaker Page 6

only for the limited purpose of determining whether [the defendant] . . . qualified as a career 

offender[.]”) 

In our prior opinion, we limited the scope of remand to “resentencing under the ACCA.” 

820 F. App’x at 383. Neither this language nor the context suggests that the district court could 

entertain the argument Schumaker seeks to advance on appeal. 

B.

Binding Sixth Circuit precedent allows district courts to consider non-elemental facts 

contained in Shepard documents to determine if a defendant has committed predicate ACCA 

offenses on different occasions. Schumaker disagrees and argues that even if we limited our 

remand (we did), Wooden changed the law about whether the district court should have required 

a jury to determine these non-elemental facts. Schumaker is mistaken. 

In United States v. King, we held that “to the extent that answering the differentoccasions question requires a sentencing judge to identify the who, when, and where of the prior 

offenses [in Shepard documents], nothing we say here precludes a judge from doing so.” 

853 F.3d 267, 274 (6th Cir. 2017). We reiterated this holding in no uncertain terms in Hennessee 

when we opined: “King . . . created no limitation on a sentencing court’s consideration of nonelemental facts contained within Shepard documents.” 932 F.3d at 442 (citing King, 853 F.3d at 

267). 

Wooden did not address whether the Constitution requires a jury or judge to resolve 

whether prior crimes occurred on a single occasion for purposes of ACCA sentencing. The 

Supreme Court explicitly stated this in its opinion. See Wooden, 595 U.S. at 365 n.3 (declining 

to address “whether the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury, rather than a judge, resolve 

whether prior crimes occurred on a single occasion”). For this exact reason, we have 

consistently found that Wooden had no impact on our decisions in King and Hennessee. See

United States v. Campbell, 77 F.4th 424, 430 (6th Cir. 2023); United States v. Thomas, No. 22-

6067, 2023 WL 5535124, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023) (quoting United States v. Cook, No. 22-

5056, 2022 WL 4684595, at *2 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2022)). And now, we do so again. 
No. 21-6250 United States v. Schumaker Page 7

Schumaker contends that King and Hennessee are not binding because they erroneously 

overlooked prior Supreme Court precedent, namely United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009) 

and Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009). We reject this argument for two reasons. First, 

“[w]here an issue was ripe for review at the time of an initial appeal but was nonetheless 

foregone, the mandate rule generally prohibits the district court from reopening the issue on 

remand.” Patterson, 878 F.3d at 218 (quoting O’Dell, 320 F.3d at 679). Hayes and Nijhawan, 

unlike Wooden, were not intervening changes in the law; therefore, Schumaker could have raised 

this argument in his initial appeal. Because he did not, the argument is forfeited and therefore 

unreviewable on appeal. See United States v. Richardson, 948 F.3d 733, 740 (6th Cir. 2020). 

Second, this argument lacks merit even if we consider it on the merits. True enough, a panel of 

this court may revisit precedent if that “precedent overlooked earlier Supreme Court authority,” 

Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, 831 F.3d 686, 720 (6th Cir. 2016), but that is not 

what happened here. Neither Hayes nor Nijhawan concerned the ACCA’s occasions-different 

requirement. For that reason, we have previously rejected the exact argument that Schumaker 

makes. See Thomas, 2023 WL 5535124, at *2 (finding that our precedent did not overlook 

Hayes or Nijhawan); Cook, 2022 WL 4684595, at *2 (same). 

Finally, Shumaker asserts that we should overrule King and Hennessee because they 

conflict with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) and 

Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013). Once again, Schumaker forfeited this

argument because he failed to raise it during his initial appeal. And the argument lacks merit. In 

Hennessee, we explicitly refused to import Descamps and Mathis’s elements-means distinction 

or elemental-facts restriction to our occasions-different analysis because “such a restriction 

would not make sense[.]” 932 F.3d at 443. “A sentencing judge would be hamstrung . . . in 

making most different-occasions determinations if he or she were only allowed to look to 

elemental facts in Shepard documents which rarely involve date, time, or location.” Id. We 

repeated this holding in United States v. Brown, 957 F.3d 679, 690 (6th Cir. 2020), and several 

other circuits are in accord. See, e.g., United States v. Dudley, 5 F.4th 1249, 1265 (11th Cir. 

2021); United States v. Walker, 953 F.3d 577, 581 (9th Cir. 2020); United States v. Blair, 

734 F.3d 218, 227–28 (3d Cir. 2013). 
No. 21-6250 United States v. Schumaker Page 8

In the absence of a Supreme Court decision or an en banc ruling, we are bound by our 

precedent—a sentencing judge may consider non-elemental facts found in Shepard documents 

when deciding whether ACCA predicate offenses were committed on different occasions. 

United States v. Ferguson, 868 F.3d 514, 515 (6th Cir. 2017). 

III.

We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.