Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael STEPHENS, aka Michael Williams, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-22
Citations: 695 F. App'x 944
Docket Number: No. 15-5553
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael STEPHENS, aka Michael Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: BEFORE: MOORE, SUTTON, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 944–944

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael STEPHENS, aka Michael Williams, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-5553
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Filed August 22, 2017
Kevin G. Ritz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Kevin Michael Schad, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendant-Appellant
BEFORE: MOORE, SUTTON, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Stephens received a career-offender guidelines enhancement in connection with his sentence for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine. On appeal, we upheld the enhancement on the basis of Stephens' prior convictions for aggravated burglary, Tenn. Code § 39-14-403, attempted aggravated burglary, id., and felony drug possession. United States v. Stephens, 651 Fed.Appx. 445 (6th Cir. 2016). Applying United States v. Ozier, 796 F.3d 597, 600-03 (6th Cir. 2015), we found Tennessee's aggravated burglary statute divisible. As a result, we looked to the facts of Stephens' prior conviction for attempted aggravated burglary to determine whether he had committed a generic form of the offense of "burglary of a dwelling." We found that he had. Stephens, 651 Fed.Appx. at 448. Following Mathis v. United States, — U.S. -, 136. S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), the Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded for further consideration. In light of Mathis and our recent decision in United States v. Stitt, 860 F.3d 854, 857-59 (6th Cir. 2017) (en banc), we reverse our prior determination and remand for resentencing, as both the government and Stephens agree is appropriate.