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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 5- 12 54

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

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.

Mar cu s Lam on t Eas on

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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 15 , 20 15

Fil ed : J ul y

14 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BENTON, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Afte r a jury tri al

, Mar cu s Lam on t Easo n was co nv ic te d of be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( e)(1 ) (Co un t
1)

, an d o f be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of am m un it io n, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§

92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( e)(1 ), an d 31 47 (1 ) (Co un t 2)

. Easo n ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t

co ur t’s ex cl us io n of ev id en ce he at te m pt ed to in tro du ce at tri al

, th e su ffi ci en cy of th eev id en ce fo r hi s co nv ic ti on on Co un t 2, an d th e a p p li cat io n of th e Arm ed Care er

Cri m in al Act (ACCA) at se nt en ci ng

. W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C

. § 1 29 1, an d a ffi rm

in pa rt a nd rev ers e in pa rt.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

On J u n e 1 6

, 20 12

, in Nor th Lit tl e Ro ck

, Ark an sa s, Easo n was in vo lv ed in a

do m es ti c in ci de nt wit h hi s th en -g irl fri en d, Sh ei la Nob le

. Nob le ’s m ot he r rep or te d th e

di st ur ba nc e to th e po li ce , an d th en cal le d ag ai n to rep or t th at Easo n was “ sh oo ti ng

up ” be hi n d h e r h ou se

. Rad io di sp at ch ga ve of fic ers a de sc rip ti on of th e pe rs on

su sp ect ed of fir in g th e sh ot s, an d rel ay ed th at th e su sp ect ’s na m e was Mar cu s Easo n.

Po li ce Serg ean t Terry Kuyken da ll he ard th e di sp at ch an d so on sp ot te d Easo n walk in g

an d carr y in g a bl ack t-s hi rt in hi s le ft ha nd

. Acco rd in g to Kuyken da ll

, it lo ok ed li ke

Easo n ha d so m et hi ng co nc eal ed in th e sh irt

. Kuyken da ll st at ed he ha d no di ffi cu lt y

id en ti fy in g Easo n fro m 50 –6 0 y ard s away. W hi le m ak in g a U-tu rn , Kuyken da ll sa w

Easo n d ro p a n i te m

to th e g ro un d.

Kuyken da ll st op pe d Easo n, pa tt ed hi m do wn, a nd wait ed fo r ba ck up

. Afte r

ba ck up arri ve d, Kuy ke nd al l sear ch ed th e area wher e h e b el ie ve d Eas on ha d t hr own

so m et hi ng an d fo un d a .45 -cal ib er pi st ol lying on th e gr ou nd in th e pa th whe re Easo n

ha d be en walk in g. Late r, Kuyken da ll al so fo un d two .45 -cal ib er sh el l cas in gs in th e

area of th e rep or te d sh oo ti ng , whi ch he de em ed to be fro m a gu n li ke th e on e he ha d

r e c ov ered

. Easo n was in di ct ed on on e co un t of po ss es si on of a fir earm as a f e l o n ,

was arra ig ne d in fed eral co ur t, an d on Decem be r 18

, 20 12

, was rel eas ed on co nd it io ns

to th e su pe rv is io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Pr ob at io n Off ic e p en di ng tri al

.

On Apr il 9, 20 13

, whi le on pr et ria l rel eas e, Easo n was in vo lv ed in an in ci de nt

at th e res id en ce of Hiawa th a W il li am s, al so in Nor th Lit tl e Ro ck

. At th at ti m e, Easo n

was en ga ge d to W il li a ms ’s d a u g h te r, Eric a Dav is

, an d he an d Dav is ha d a di sp ut e.

W he n W il li am s sa w th at Easo n ha d a fir earm , he ran ne xt do or an d bo rro wed a .38 0

-2

-pi st ol

. W il li am s ret ur ne d to hi s ho m e an d fir ed a warn in g sh ot

, whi ch hi t th e cei li ng

im m ed ia te ly abo ve hi m

on th e fro nt po rch . Accor di ng to W il li am s, Eas on th en lef t

th e res id en ce. As W il li am s ret ur ne d to hi s be dr oo m , he he ard a sh ot fir ed

. Alt ho ug h

he di d no t se e th e sh oo te r, Wi l l i a ms b e l ie ve d it was Easo n. Late r, du rin g th e

in ve st ig at io n, Dete ct iv e Gib bo ns of th e Nor th Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce fo un d a 9- m il li m et er

bu ll et in W il li am s’s be dr oo m cl os et an d a sp en t sh el l cas in g ne arb y

. A su pe rs ed in g

in di ct m en t was fil ed

, ad di ng Co un t 2: po ss es si on of am m un it io n as a fel on

. On Apr il

16 , 20 13 , Easo n was ord ered to be de ta in ed pe nd in g t ria l.

The jury ret ur ne d gu il ty v erd ic ts on bo th co un ts – Co un t 1 , for po ss es si on of

th e .45 -cal ib er pi st ol th at Offi cer Kuyken da ll ret rie ve d, an d Co un t 2, fo r po ss es si on

of th e 9- m il li m et er am m

un it io n fo un d in W il li am s’s cl os et

. At se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t

d e t e r mi n ed th at Easo n ha d at le as t th ree pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r a vi ol en t fel on y or

se rio us d r ug of

fen se , or bo th

, an d th eref or e was su bjec t to se nt en ci ng as an arm ed

care er cri m in al

. At an of

fen se le ve l of 34

, an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y VI, Easo n’s

ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge was 26 2- 32 7 m on th s. The d is tri ct co ur t im po se d a

se nt en ce o f 30 0 m on th s. Eas on ti m el y ap pe al ed

.

II . Dis cus si on

1. Da sh Camera Vi deo

Easo n’s fir st arg um en t is th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g ev id en ce of

a da s h c a mer a vi de o fro m Offi cer Kuyken da ll ’s sq ua d car. At tri al

, Serg ean t
Kuyken da ll te st ifi ed on cro ss ex am in at io n th at hi s pa tro l car di d no t ha ve a da sh

cam era. At th at po in t, Easo n’s co un se l req ue st ed a be nc h co nf eren ce, an d in fo rm ed

th e co ur t th at

, th ro ug h a Free do m of In fo rm at io n Act (FOIA) re qu es t, sh e ha d

ob ta in ed a da sh cam era vi de o fo r Ju ne 16

, 20 12

, whi ch sh owe d “ an of fic er who lo ok s

-3

-li ke [Ku y ke nd al l]” in th e fo ot ag e. Defen se co un se l to ld th e co ur t th e vi de o was “ no t 1

rel ev an t to th is ca s e i n t h a t i t ’s no t ab ou t th is cas e, bu t it wou ld sh ow th at he do es

ha ve a da sh ca mer a

. ” The go ve rn m en t di d no t ob ject to th e de fen se qu es ti on in g Kuyken da ll ab ou t th e vi de o, bu t ex pr es se d co nc ern ab ou t th e vi de o be in g pl ay ed fo r

th e jury. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e de fen se ha d “ a go od fai th ba si s to im pe ach ”
Kuyken da ll wit h th e vi de o an d al lo wed Easo n to qu es ti on hi m ab ou t it

. At th at po in t,

th e co ur t di d no t pe rm it th e vi de o to be pl ay ed fo r th e jury, bu t sa id “ we ’l l ju s t cal l

hi m ba ck to m or ro w.” W he n cro ss ex am in at io n res um ed

, Kuyken da ll te st ifi ed th at he

di d no t “ rem em

be r ex act ly” whe th er he h a d a da sh cam era in hi s pa tro l car on th e

ni gh t of Easo n’s arre st

. Afte r hi s te st im on y co nc lu de d, Offi cer Kuyken da ll was to ld

he was s ub

ject t o re cal l as a wit ne ss

.

Two da y s la te r, th e pa rti es rev is it ed th e is su e of th e da sh cam era vi de o wit h th e

co ur t ou ts id e th e pr es en ce of th e jury. App aren tl y , in th e in te rim, co un se l fo r Easo n

watc he d th e vi de o in fu ll fo r th e fir st ti m e. Thi s ti m e, sh e in fo rm ed th e co ur t th at sh e

ha d “ di sc ov ered th at th ere was ev id en ce di rect ly rel ev an t to th e in ve st ig at io n in th is

cas e” o n t he vi de o, be cau se it sh owe d Offi cer Kuyken da ll ret ur ni ng to th e sc en e o f

Easo n’s arre st

. The go ve rn m en t ob jecte d to us e of th e vi de o be cau se th e de fen se ha d

no t pr ov id ed it to th e go ve rn m en t pr io r to tri al

, whi ch th e go ve rn m en t reg ard ed as a

v i o l at io n of it s req ue st fo r reci pr oc al di sc ov ery un de r Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in a l

Pro ced ur e 16

. The co ur t s u s t a in ed th e ob jecti on , rei te rat in g th at th e de fen se co ul d

us e th e vi de o as im

pe ach m en t th ro ug h qu es ti on in g, bu t co ul d n ot pl ay it in fro nt of

th e jury.

W he n Offi cer Kuyken da ll an d h i s c o l l eag ue s fir st en co un te red Easo n, th ey 1

se arch ed Easo n an d th e area a r o u n d h i m. The y fo un d a .45 -cal ib er pi st ol an d two

ex pe nd ed .45 -cal ib er ro un ds . The d as h c am era v id eo is fro m la te r th at ni gh t, wh en Offi cer Kuyken da ll ret ur ne d to th e sc en e aft er th e arre st to se arch fo r ad di ti on al

ev id en ce, an d fo un d no ne

. It ap pe ars th at at th e ti m e of Kuyken da l l ’s i n i t i a l cro ss

ex am in at io n, co un se l d id no t k no w what ex act ly w as de pi ct ed on th e v id eo

.

-4

-On ap pe al

, Easo n arg ue s th at th e di s t r i c t c o ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g th e da sh

cam er a v i d eo at two se pa rat e ti m es : whe n th e di st ric t co ur t pr ev en te d th e de fen se

fro m sh owi ng th e vi de o to th e ju r y ( 1 ) d u r in g th e in it ia l re-c ro ss ex am in at io n of
Kuyken da ll , a nd (2 ) whe n th e de fen se at te m pt ed to re-c al l Ku y ke nd al l as a wit ne ss

to im pe ach hi m wit h th e vi de o. W e an al y ze e a c h i n s t a n ce in tu rn , rev ie win g

ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Med eari s, 38 0 F.3 d

10 49 , 10 56 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

As to th e in it ia l re-c ro ss ex am in at io n, the go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at Easo n di d no t

of fer th e vi de o, an d th us th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d no t ha ve erre d in ex cl ud in g it

. W e 2

wil l as su m e fo r th e sa ke of an al y si s th at Easo n m ad e a req ue st to sh ow th e vi de o, bu t

qu es ti on whe th er the di st ric t cou rt in fact de ni ed th e req ue st

. In st ead of an ou tri gh t

de ni al , th e co ur t’s ru li ng ap pe ars to ha ve be en a su gg es ti on to ad dr es s t he is su e th e

fo ll owi ng da y

. Nev ert he le ss , we wil l fu rth er as su m e th e di st ric t co ur t’s res po ns e of

“ [n ]ot in fro nt of th e jury” was a de ni al of th e req u e st

. Howev er, Easo n’s co un se l

st at ed th e vi de o was “ no t rel ev an t to th is cas e i n t h a t i t ’s no t ab ou t th is cas e.” The

di st ric t co ur t rep eat ed th at th e vi de o ha d “ no th in g to do wit h th is cas e,” to whi ch th e

de fen se res po nd ed “ [c]orr ect .” “ [A] wit ne ss m ay no t be im pe ach ed on a co ll at eral

m at te r by th e us e of ex tri ns ic ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Gro om s, 97 8 F.2 d 42 5, 42 8
(8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Easo n co nc ed ed th at th e vi de o as pr es en te d to th e co ur t was n o t a

“ m at te r m at eri al to th e su bs ta nt iv e is su es of t he cas e,” i d. at 42 9 (qu ot in g Cwach v.

Uni te d St at es , 21 2 F.2 d 52 0, 53 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 54 )), an d th us it “ co ul d no t be sh own in

ev id en ce fo r an y pu rp os e in de pe nd en t of th e co nt rad ic ti on .” Uni te d St at es v.

Ro ul et te

, 75 F.3 d 41 8, 42 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). The vi de o was “ th eref or e in ad m is si bl e”

ba se d on th e in fo rm at io n gi ve n by de fen se co un se l at th e ti m e. Id

. The di st ric t co ur t

al lo wed Easo n to qu es ti on Offi cer Kuyken da ll ab ou t th e vi de o, ag reei ng wit h Easo n

th at th is li ne of im

pe ach m en t was acce pt ab le

. And Easo n fo ll owe d up by qu es ti on in g

The go ve rn m en t di d no t a r g u e th at an y vi ol at io n of Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 16 2

req ui red ex cl us io n o f th e v id eo on in it ia l re -cro ss ex am in at io n.

-5

-Offi cer Kuyken da ll ab ou t whe th er he ha d a “ vi de o un it ” in hi s sq ua d car. The di st ric t

co ur t d id no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in no t pe rm it ti ng th e de fen se to pl ay th e vi de o

du rin g i ni ti al re-c ro ss ex am in at io n.

Easo n al so as se rts erro r whe n th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s la te r req ue st to sh ow

th e vi de o to Offi cer Kuyken da ll fo r th e pu rp os e of im pe ach in g hi m

. The go ve rn m en t

ob jecte d, th is ti m e as se rti ng a Ru le 16 di sc ov ery vi ol at io n. The reci pr oc al di sc ov ery

r u l e, Ru le 16 (b )(1 )(A), st at es th at if th e go ve rn m en t co m pl ie s wit h a de fen da n t ’s

req ue st ed di sc lo su res , th e de fen se m us t pr ovi de the gove rn m en t, upon re quest

, si m il ar

it em s “ wit hi n t h e de fen da nt ’s po ss es si on , cu st od y , or co nt ro l,” if “ th e de fen da nt

in te nd s to us e th e it em in th e de fen da nt ’s ca s e

- i n

- c h i e f at tri al .” Fed

. R. Cri m

. P.

16 (b )(1 )(A)’s req ui rem en ts fo r d i s c l os ur e of ev id en ce, ho wev er, do no t ap pl y to

im pe ach m en t ev id en ce. Med eari s, 38 0 F.3 d at 1 0 5 7. Thu s, th e fact th at de fen se

co un se l di d no t tu rn ov er th e vi de o to th e go ve rn m en t pr io r to tri al is no t gr ou nd s to

pr oh ib it th e de fen se fro m us in g th e vi d e o f or im pe ach m en t pu rp os es

. Bu t whe n 3

rev ie win g an ev id en ti ary ru li ng , we wil l rev ers e “ on ly whe n an im pr op er ev id en ti ary

ru li ng affe ct ed th e de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s or ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce

on th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at e s v. Pi card i, 73 9 F.3 d 11 18

, 11 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Sum m ag e, 57 5 F .3d 86 4, 8 77 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

In th is cas e, Easo n has fai le d to sh ow ho w no t pl ay in g th e vi de o affec te d hi s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s or ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e v e r d i c t

. See Uni te d

Ty pi cal ly, th e de fen se cal li ng a wit ne ss wou ld be pa rt of it s cas e-i n- ch ie f an d 3

th eref or e wit hi n th e pa ram et ers of Ru le 16

. Here, ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t

sp eci fic al ly s ug ge st ed

, i ns te ad of pu rs ui ng an ad di ti on al li ne of qu es ti on in g du rin g th e in it ia l cro ss ex am in at io n, th at Offi cer Kuyken da ll be cal le d ba ck as a wit ne ss

. W e th eref or e vi e w Easo n’s su bs eq ue nt at te m pt to in tro du ce th e vi de o as th e at te m pt ed

in tro du ct io n of ev id en ce “ fo r im pe ach m en t pu rp os es

. . . no t excl ud ab le un de r Ru le

16 (b )(1 )(A),” an d no t as ev id en ce in hi s case -in -ch ie f. Med eari s, 38 0 F.3 d at 10 57

.

-6

-S t a t e s v. Yarri ng to n, 63 4 F.3 d 44 0, 44 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). W hi le th e di st ric t co u r t

pr ev en te d Easo n fro m sh owi ng th e vi de o du rin g ad di ti on al cr o s s ex am in at io n, th e

co ur t ex pr es sl y pe rm it te d th e de fen se to “ cal l hi m ba ck , and ask hi m

if h e d id n’t g o

ba ck an d lo ok [at th e sc en e of arre st ]” as well as ab ou t whe th er he was “ se arch in g th e

gr ou nd wit h a fla sh li gh t wit h hi s he ad li gh ts on wit h a da sh ca m t h a t h e te st ifi ed he

di dn ’t ha ve or he was n’t su re [h e ha d].” The co ur t pl aced no li m it at io ns – ot he r th an pl ay in g th e vi de o – on Easo n’s ab il it y to ta ke Kuyken da ll th ro ug h ev ery st ep of wha t

th e vi de o sh owe d or to im pe ach Kuyken da ll ba se d on hi s m em or y of t he ev en in g. 4

Easo n arg ue s th at th e vi de o was im po rta nt be cau se it wou ld ha ve “ as si st [ed ] th e jury

ab ou t th e co nd it io ns at th e al le ge d cri m e sc en e on th e ni gh t of [Eas on ’s arre st ], ” bu t

he po in ts to no pa rti cu la r co nd it io n or as pe ct of th e cri m e sc en e th at th e jury ne ed ed

to se e. W hi le we do no t di sp ut e Easo n’s as se rti on th at Kuyken da ll ’s cred ib il it y was

im po rta nt to th e de fen se , Easo n fai ls to ex p l a i n h o w Kuyken da ll wou ld ha ve be en

fu rth er im pe ach ed by sh owi ng th e vi de o. Our co nc lu si on – th at Easo n ha s no t sh own

a su ffi ci en t effe ct on hi s rig ht s or on th e ve rd ic t – is fu rth er su pp or te d by th e fact th at

,

a f t e r th e vi de o was ex cl ud ed

, Easo n de cl in ed to co nd uc t an y ad di ti on al cro s s

ex am in at io n o f Kuyken da ll at a ll

. 5

The co ur t al so in di cat ed it wou ld ha ve a l l o wed Easo n to sh ow Offi cer 4 Kuyken da ll th e ta pe ou ts id e of th e pr es en ce of th e jury to p rep are h im for th e cro ss

ex am in at io n. The reco rd sh ows no in di cat io n th at Easo n to ok ad va nt ag e of th is

op po rtu ni ty.

Easo n al so arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t’s fai lu re to pr ov id e a co py of th e da sh 5

cam era vi de o was a vi ol at io n of Brad y

. The go ve rn m en t co m m it s a Brad y vi ol at io n whe n it su pp res se s ev id en ce th at is fav or ab le t o a d e f e n da nt an d is m at eri al as to
ei th er g ui lt or p un is hm en t. Bra dy v. Marylan d, 3 73 U.S. 83 , 87 (19 63 ). Bu t Eas on

m ad e on ly a pa ss in g refe ren ce to Brad y be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, an d fai le d to se ek a

ru li ng f ro m th e di st ric t co ur t on th is is su e. Reg ard le ss of whe th er Brad y ap pl ie s to
th e ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d he re, Easo n do es no t ex pl ai n ho w sh owi ng th e vi de o was

“ m at eri al as to gu il t.” See You ng bl oo d v. W es t Virg in ia , 5 47 U.S. 8 6 7, 87 0 (2 00 6) (p er cu ria m ) (Ho ld in g ev id en ce is m at eri al to gu il t if th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t “ ha d th e ev id en ce be en

-7

-2. Def

ens e Pho to gr ap hs

Easo n at te m

pt ed to in tro du ce ph ot og rap hs ta ke n b y a de fen se in ve st ig at or , de pi ct in g th e area whe re th e po li ce arre st ed Easo n an d fo un d th e .45 -cal ib er pi st ol on

Ju ne 16

, 20 12

. The go ve rn m en t ob jecte d th at th e de fen se ha d vi ol at ed it s reci pr oc al

di sc ov ery ob li ga ti on , an d th e co ur t ex cl ud ed th e ph ot og rap hs fro m ev id en ce. Easo n

al le ge s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y pr oh ib it ed hi m fro m in tro du ci ng t h e ph ot og rap hs be cau se th e jury req ue st ed to vi ew th e sc en e of th e cri m e, in di cat in g th at

th ey want ed m or e in fo rm at io n a bo ut it th at th e p ho to gr ap hs co ul d h av e p ro vi de d.

The ph ot og rap hs were ev id en ce Easo n at te m pt ed to in tro du ce du rin g hi s cas ein -ch ie f an d were th eref

or e su bje c t to th e req ui rem en ts of Ru le 16 (b )(1 )(A). See

Med eari s, 38 0 F.3 d at 10 57

. The de fen se ’s fai lu re to tu rn th em o v e r to th e

go ve rn m en t was a vi ol at io n of tha t rul e. Easo n arg ue s th at ev en if th ere was a Ru le

16 vi ol at io n, ex cl ud in g th e ph ot og rap hs co m pl et el y was to o h a r s h a sa nc ti on

. Bu t

Easo n of fere d no op ti on le ss se ve re th an ex cl us io n fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er. Reg ard le ss , e ve n i f it was erro r no t to pe rm it Easo n to in tro du ce th es e ph ot og rap hs

at tri al

, Easo n ha s fai le d to es ta bl is h an effe ct on h i s s u b s t a nt ia l rig ht s or on th e

ve rd ic t. See Pi card i, 73 9 F.3 d at 11 24 (q uo ti ng Su m m ag e, 57 5 F.3 d at 87 7)

. W hi le

t h e ju ry m ay ha ve wan te d to se e th e sc en e, Easo n do es no t ex pl ai n ho w th e ph ot os

wou ld ha ve si gn ifi can tl y ai de d in th ei r as se ss m en t of th e ev id en ce or ho w se ei ng th e

sc en e wou ld ha ve in flu en ced th e v erd ic t. Eas on po in ts to no co nt ro ve rte d i ss ue s at

tri al th at th e in cl us io n of th e ph ot og rap hs wou ld ha ve he lp ed res ol ve

. The refo re, we

can no t co nc lu de th a t t he di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g th e ph ot og rap hs

.

di sc lo se d t o t he de fen se .”).

-8

-3. Su ffi ci ency of t he Ev id ence

Easo n al le ge s th at th ere was no t en ou gh ev id en ce fo r th e jury to fin d hi m gu il ty

of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of am m un it io n as ch arg ed in Co un t 2. W e rev ie w th e

su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in

th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury’ s ve rd ic t an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es

in su pp or t of th e ve rd ic t. Uni te d St at es v. Arm st ro ng , 78 2 F.3 d 10 28

, 10 35 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ). “ [W] e wil l rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d [Eas on ] gu il ty

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id. (f irs t al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s

v. M cCra ne y , 61 2 F .3d 10 57 , 10 63 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) ).

Easo n arg ue s th e go ve rn men t fai le d to pr ov e he kn owi ng ly po ss es se d

am m un it io n on Apr il 9, 20 13

. He as se rts th at th e m ai n ev id en ce on th is is su e was th e

te st im on y of Hiawa th a W il li am s, who ad m it te d he co ul d no t co nc lu si ve ly sa y Easo n

po ss es se d th e am m

un it io n. W il li am s tes ti fie d, “ a sh ot was fir ed fro m I do n’t kn ow

ex act ly if it cam e fro m Mr. Easo n. My be li ef it was .” Howev er, th e ev id en ce al so

in cl ud ed W il li am s’s te st im on y th at he sa w Easo n le a v e Wi ll ia m s’s ho m e wit h

“ so m et hi ng th at lo ok ed li ke a gu n,” an d th at Easo n ha d a “ bi g pi st ol .” The jury al so

he ard ev id en ce ab ou t th e sp en t bu ll et cas in g s f ou nd at th e W il li am s res id en ce, th e

91 1 cal l fro m Eric a Dav is te ll in g of fic ers Easo n ha d a gu n, an d t he tes ti m on y of an

of fic er who r e s p o n d e d to th e sc en e an d sa id Dav is to ld hi m Easo n ha d a gu n. The
jury was pe rm it te d to co ns id er al l of th e ev id en ce an d gi ve it th e weig ht it sa w fit

. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, we can no t fin d

th at “ no r e as on ab le jury” co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at Easo n kn owi ng ly po ss es se d

am m un it io n a s ch arg ed in Co un t 2 . Arm st ro ng , 78 2 F .3d at 1 03 5.

4. Armed Car eer Cr imina l En ha ncement

Easo n as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by se nt en ci ng hi m as an arm ed care er

cri m in al un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 1) (“ In th e cas e o f a p ers on who vi ol at es se ct io n

-9

-92 2( g) of th is ti tl e an d 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 u g of fen se , or bo th

. . . su ch pe rs on

. . . sh al l be im pr is on ed no t le ss th an fif te en

y ears

. . . .”). Easo n ha s a pr io r 2 0 0 6 c o n v i ct io n fo r de li ve ry of co cai ne , whi ch he

do es no t co nt es t q ua li fie s as a se rio us dru g o ffen se for pu rp os es of t he ACCA. W e

no w m us t de te rm in e whe th er he ha s two ad di ti on al qu al ifyin g pr io r co nv ic ti on s su ch

th at he was pr op erl y se nt en ced pu rs ua nt to th e ACCA. “ W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er

a pr io r co nv ic ti on is a pr ed ic at e of fen se un de r th e ACCA

. ” Uni te d St at es v.

Sh oc kl ey , 81 6 F.3 d 10 58

, 10 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hum ph rey,

75 9 F .3d 90 9, 9 11 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) ).

At se nt en ci ng , Easo n m ad e a ge ne ral ob jecti on to us e of th e res id ua l cl au se of

th e ACCA, arg ui ng it was un co ns ti t u ti on al ly va gu e an d co ul d no t be ap pl ie d to

de te rm in e whe th er hi s pri or co nv ic ti on s qu al ifi ed fo r pu rp os es of th e en ha nc em en t.

Easo n di d no t sp eci fic al ly ob ject to an y pa rti cu la r co nv ic ti on or m ak e an y ad di ti on al

arg um en t t o th e di st ric t co ur t. The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on , wit ho ut

ru li ng on whe th er th e two ad di ti on al co nv ic ti on s qu al ifi ed un de r th e res id ua l cl au se , th e fo rce c la us e, or bo th

. 6

W hi le th is ap pe al was pe nd in g, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e res id ua l cl au se

of th e ACCA i s u nc on st it ut io na ll y va gu e. See J oh ns on v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S . Ct.

25 51

, 25 57 (2 01 5)

. Bec au se Easo n’s pr io r co nv ic ti o n s can no lo ng er qu al ify as

pr ed ic at e of

fen se s un de r th e res id ua l cl au se , th e on ly rem ai ni ng qu es ti on is whe th er

an y of hi s pr io r fel on ie s can qu al ify as pr ed ic at e of fen se s un de r th e ACCA’s fo rce

cl au se

. The fo rce cl au se of th e ACCA ap pl ie s to fel on y of fen se s th at in cl ud e “ as an

el em en t th e us e, at te m

pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on

of an ot he r.” 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i)

. “ Ph y si cal fo rce ‘m ean s vi ol en t fo rce— th at

The go ve rn m en t so ug ht an d ob ta in ed a co nc es si on fro m Easo n at se nt en ci ng 6

th at “ th ere is no ob

jecti on th at Mr. Easo n fal ls wit h[ in ] th e res id ua l cl au se ,” an d di d

no t in tro du ce an y ev id en ce or arg um en t to su pp or t a fin di ng th at an y of Easo n’s pr io r

co nv ic ti on s q ua li fie d u nd er t he “ fo rce c la us e.”

-1 0-is

, fo rce cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or in jury to an ot he r pe rs on .’ ” Uni te d St at es

v. Sch affe r, 81 8 F.3 d 79 6, 79 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 55 9

U.S. 13 3, 1 40 (20 10 )).

In de te rm in in g whet he r a pr io r co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as a pr ed ic at e of fen se fo r

pu rp os es of th e ACCA se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t, we fir st ap pl y th e c a t e g o r i cal

ap pr oa ch , l oo ki ng “ on ly t o th e fact of c on vi ct io n a nd th e st at ut or y de fin it io n of th e

pr io r of fen se .” Sh oc kl ey , 81 6 F.3 d at 10 63 (q uo ti ng Tay lo r v. Uni te d St at es , 49 5 U.S.

57 5, 60 2 (1 99 0) ). One of Easo n’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s was fo r ro bb ery un de r Ark

. Co de

Ann

. § 5- 12 -1 02

. The Ark an sa s ro bb ery st a tu te

, § 5- 12 -1 02

, st at es “ [a] pe rs on

co m m it s ro bb ery if, wit h th e pu rp os e of co m m it ti ng a fel on y or m is de m ean or th eft or

res is ti ng ap pr eh en si on im m ed ia te ly aft er co m m it ti ng a fel on y or m is de m ean or th eft

, th e pe rs on em

pl oys or th reat en s to im m ed ia te ly em pl oy ph y si cal fo rce up on an ot he r

pe rs on

. ” I d

. P h ys i cal fo rce un de r Ark an sa s la w is de fin ed as “ an y

. . . [b ]odi ly

im pa ct

, res tra i nt

, or co nf

in em en t; or [t]hr eat of an y bo di ly im pa ct

, res tra in t, or

co nf in em en t.” Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 5- 12 -1 01

. Afte r Jo hn so n, th is de fin i t io n, on it s

face

, fal ls sh or t of req ui rin g “ fo rce cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si c a l pa in or in jury to

an ot he r pe rs on .”

In Uni te d St at es v. Sawy er, 58 8 F.3 d 54 8, 55 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), we st at ed th at

“ [b ]y de fin it io n, r o b b e r y in Ark an sa s qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1) ” of th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s be cau se th e st at ut e st at es

th at “ th e pe rs on e mp l o ys or th reat en s to im m ed ia te ly em pl oy ph y si cal fo rce up on

an ot he r pe rs on .” See Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 53 7 F.3 d 96 9, 97 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )
(“ [W] e are bo un d by cas es in te rp ret in g whe th er an of fe n s e i s a c r im e of vi ol en ce

un de r th e G u i d e li ne s as well as cas es in te rp ret in g whe th er an of fen se is a vi ol en t

fel on y un de r th e [ACCA].”). Su bs eq ue nt ly, th e Su pr em e Co ur t wro te in Jo hn so n v.

Uni te d St at es th at “ in th e co nt ex t of a st at ut or y de fin it io n o f ‘ v i o l en t fel on y ,’ th e ph ras e ‘physic al fo rce’ m ean s vi ol en t fo rce – th at is

, fo rce cap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal

pa in or in jury to an ot he r pe rs on .” 55 9 U.S. 1 33 , 1 40 (2 01 0) . Becau se Sawy er was

-1 1-pr e-J oh ns on , we ha d no oc cas io n to ad dr es s whe th er or no t th e “p h ysi cal fo rce”

req ui red by th e Ark an sa s ro bb ery st at ut e an d el uc id at ed by A r k a n s as ’s st at ut or y

de fin it io n of th at t e r m w as eq ui va le nt to th e vi ol en t fo rce su ffi ci en t to qu al ify as a

cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e fo rce cl au se aft er Jo hn so n. “ It is a card in al ru le in ou r

ci rcu it th at on e pa ne l is bo un d by th e de ci si on of a pr io r pa n e l

. ” Uni te d St at es v.

And ers on , 77 1 F.3 d 10 64

, 10 66 –6 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bet ch er,

53 4 F.3 d 82 0, 82 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). “ Thi s ru le

, ho wev er, do es no t a p p l y w he n th e

earl ie r pa ne l de ci si on is cas t in to do ub t by an in te rv en in g Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on .”

Id

. (ci ti ng W il li am s, 53 7 F.3 d at 97 5)

. Jo hn so n “ el ev at ed th e ne ces sa ry qu an tu m of

fo rce fro m de [ min imi s ] to ‘vio le nt ,’ ” Uni te d Stat es v. W in st on , No. 3: 01 -cr- 00 07 9,

20 16 W L 27 57 45 1, a t * 5 (W. D. Va. May 11

, 20 16 ), an d th ereb y “ cas ts su ffi ci en t

do ub t on th e reas on in g” of so m e pr e-J oh ns on ho ld in gs reg ard in g cri m es of vi ol en ce,

Uni te d St at es v. H o l l o w a y, 63 0 F.3 d 25 2, 25 4– 55 (1 st Ci r. 20 11 ). The refo re, Sawy er’s “ ru le th at th e bo il erp la te ch arg in g la ng ua ge of [ro bb ery] al on e es ta bl is he s

a vi ol en t fel on y ” m ay be rig ht fu ll y reev al ua te d. Id

. W hi le th e reas on in g of Sawy er

“ is no lo ng er so un d, it s co nc lu si on m ay st il l be co rrec t if r ob be ry un de r [Ark an sa s]

la w” m eet s t he Jo hn so n s ta nd ard . W in st on , 20 16 W L 27 57 45 1, at *5 . It d oe s n ot

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t of Ark an sa s ha s he ld th at th e de gr ee of fo rce us ed was

su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a ro bb ery co nv ic ti on ev en whe re th ere was no th reat of fo rce an d

no act ua l in

jury be fel l th e v i c t i m. S e e Fai rch il d v. St at e, 60 0 S.W .2d 16

, 17 (Ark

. 19 80 ) (“ [J ]erki ng th e do or fro m [a vi ct im ], co rn eri ng [h er] i n th e ba ck ha ll way an d

gr ab bi ng he r dr es s [li gh tl y ] is s u f f ic ie nt res tra in t an d bo di ly im pa ct to co ns ti tu te
ph y si cal fo rce.” ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Cas tro -Vazq ue z, 80 2 F.3 d 28

, 37 (1 st Ci r.

20 15 ) (h ol di ng th at Pu ert o Ri co ’s ro bb ery st at ut e di d no t req ui re vi ol en t fo rce whe re

“ vi ol en ce” was de fin ed to in cl ud e on ly th e sl ig ht es t us e of fo rce)

. Bu t se e Ban ks v.

St at e, 20 09 Ark

. App

. 63 3, at *3 (Ark

. Ct

. App

. 20 09 ) (“ [T h e A r k a n s as Su pr em e

Co ur t] ha s st at ed th at th e m ere sn at ch in g of m on ey or go od s fro m th e ha nd of an ot he r

is no t ro bb ery ‘unl es s so m e in jury is do ne to th e pe rs on or th ere be so m e st ru gg le fo r

po ss es si on of th e pr op ert y pr io r to th e act ua l ta ki ng or so m e fo rce us ed in or de r to

-1 2-ta ke it .’ ” (q uo ti ng Park er v. St at e, 52 9 S.W .2d 86 0, 86 3 (1 97 5) )). In su m , we can no t

co nc lu de th at th e de gr e e o f p hysic al fo rce req ui red to co m m it ro bb ery in Ark an sa s

ris es to th e le ve l of ph y si cal fo rce req ui red to es ta bl is h a cri m e of vi ol en ce fo r ACCA

pu rp os es

. See Sc ha ffer , 81 8 F .3d at 7 98

.

7

Easo n was al so co nv i c t ed of th ird de gr ee do m es ti c ba tt ery, un de r Ark

. Co de

Ann

. § 5- 26 -3 05

. Bec au se t h e r e a re m ul ti pl e su bd iv is io ns of th e th ird de gr ee

do m es ti c ba tt ery st at ut e an d we can no t cat eg or ic al ly de te rm in e th at it i s a c r i me of

vi ol e n c e un de r th e fo rce cl au se , we m us t us e th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to

at te m pt to es ta bl is h whi ch su bd iv is io n of th e st at ut e su pp or te d Easo n’s co nv ic ti on

. The on ly in fo rm at io n in th e reco rd es ta bl is hi ng th is co nv ic ti on co m es fro m Easo n’s

PSR, to whi ch he di d no t ob ject. The rel ev an t en try “ pr ov id es a br ie f de sc rip ti on of

th e un de rlyin g fact s, ba se d on ‘cou rt reco rd s.’” S ho ck le y , 81 6 F.3 d at 10 63

.

“ W it ho ut m or e in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e so ur ce of th es e of fen se de sc rip ti on s, we can no t

rel y on th e fact ua l as se rti on s in [Eas on ’s] PSR.” Id

. (ci ti ng Oss an a, 63 8 F.3 d at 90 3

W hi le we ha ve he ld th at fo rce th at pr od uc es ev en a m in im al de gr ee of bo di ly 7

in jury co ns ti tu te s vi ol en t fo rce, se e Uni te d St at es v. Ri ce, 81 3 F.3 d 70 4, 70 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), act ua l bo di ly in

jury is no t req ui red to es ta bl is h a ro bb ery un de r Ark an sa s la w. We h av e al so he ld

, ho wev er, th at no t ev ery un wan te d to uc hi ng co ns ti tu te s vi o l e n t
fo rce. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Oss an a, 63 8 F.3 d 89 5, 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th at th e Ariz on a s i mp le as sa ul t st at ut e, Ariz

. Rev

. St at

. § 13 -1 20 3, whi ch co ul d be

vi ol at ed “ wit h a ny deg ree o f co nt act by ‘ [k ]nowi ng ly tou ch in g a no th er p ers on wit h

th e in te nt to

. . . in su lt or pr ov ok e su ch pe rs on ,’ ” di d no t qu al ify as th e us e of ph y si cal

fo rce bec au se it was no t vi ol en t fo rce)

. Oth er co ur ts ha ve si m il arl y he ld th at no t all

u n w a nt ed to uc hi ng s ris e to th e le ve l of vi ol en ce req ui red by th e fo rce cl au se

. See,

e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Gard ne r, No. 14 -4 53 3, 20 16 W L 28 93 88 1, at *7 (4 th Ci r. May

18

, 20 16 ) (h ol di ng th at th e fo rce req ui red un de r Nor th Caro li na ’s ro bb ery st at ut e was in su ffi ci en t to qu al ify cat eg or ic al ly as a cri m e of vi ol en ce, an d su pp or ti ng th at res ul t
wit h exa m

pl es of up he ld co nv ic ti on s wh ere “ a d efen da nt pu sh ed th e sh ou ld er of an

e l e c tro ni cs st or e cl erk

, cau si ng he r to fal l on to sh el ve s whi le th e de fen da n t t o o k

po ss es si on of a te le vi si on ,” an d whe re a de fen da nt “ pu sh [ed ] th e vi ct im ’s ha nd of f of

a car to n o f ci ga ret te s.”)

-1 3-(“ [I]n ap pl y in g th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch

, se nt en ci ng co ur ts m ay no t lo ok to

fact ua l as se rti on s wit h i n f e d e r al pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or ts – ev en if th e

de fen da nt fai le d to ob

ject to th e rep or ts – whe re th e so ur ce of th e in fo rm at io n in th e

rep or ts m ig ht ha ve be en fro m a no n- jud ic ia l so ur ce.”) ). W it ho ut co nc lu si ve ev id en ce

es ta bl is hi ng whi ch su bs ect io n of th e st at ut e Easo n w a s co nv ic te d of vi ol at in g, we

m ay no t co nc lu de th is pr io r co nv ic ti on was a vi ol en t fel on y un de r th e fo rce cl au se

. Id

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Bec au se Easo n d id no t h av e at lea st th ree p red ic at e of fen se s fo r pu rp os es of

8

18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e), we va cat e hi s se nt en ce an d rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r

res en te nc in g. We affi rm

th e jud gm en t i n a ll ot he r res pe ct s.

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

Easo n was al so co nv ic te d of fir st de gr ee ba tt ery un de r Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 5- 13

- 8

20 1. Bec au se th e g ov ern m en t h as est ab li sh ed on ly o ne ot he r pr ed ic at e of fen se , we

ne ed no t d et erm in e whe th er t hi s co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es un de r th e fo rce c la us e.

-1 4-