Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

trict Court sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 15 
years’  imprisonment  under  ACCA,  based  on  his  prior 
felony  convictions  for  robbery,  attempted  robbery,  and
illegal possession of a sawed-off shotgun. 

B 
ACCA  provides  a  mandatory  minimum  sentence  for 

certain  violations  of  §922(g),  which  prohibits  the  ship­
ment,  transportation,  or  possession  of  firearms  or  ammu­
nition by convicted felons, persons previously committed to 
a  mental  institution,  and  certain  others.    Federal  law 
normally  provides  a  maximum  sentence  of  10  years’  im­
prisonment for such crimes.  See §924(a)(2).  Under ACCA, 
however, if a defendant convicted under §922(g) has three 
prior  convictions  “for  a  violent  felony  or  a  serious  drug
offense,” the sentencing court must impose a sentence of at
least 15 years’ imprisonment.  §924(e)(1). 

ACCA’s  definition  of  a  “violent  felony”  has  three  parts.
First,  a  felony  qualifies  if  it  “has  as  an  element  the  use, 
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against 
the  person  of  another.”  §924(e)(2)(B)(i).    Second,  the  Act 
specifically  names  four  categories  of  qualifying  felonies: 
burglary,  arson,  extortion,  and  offenses  involving  the  use 
of  explosives.  See  §924(e)(2)(B)(ii).  Third,  the  Act  con­
tains  what  we  have  called  a  “residual  clause,”  which 
reaches  any  felony  that  “otherwise  involves  conduct  that 
presents  a  serious  potential  risk  of  physical  injury  to
another.”  Ibid. 

The present case concerns the residual clause.  The sole 
question  raised  in  Johnson’s  certiorari  petition  was
whether  possession  of  a  sawed-off  shotgun  under  Minne- 
sota  law  qualifies  as  a  violent  felony  under  that  clause.
Although  Johnson  argued  in  the  lower  courts  that  the
residual  clause  is  unconstitutionally  vague,  he  did  not 
renew  that  argument  here.    Nevertheless,  after  oral  ar­
gument, the Court raised the question of vagueness on its