Opinion ID: 2976764
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of the ACCA Enhancement

Text: Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), a defendant who violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and has three prior convictions for a violent felony or serious drug conviction “committed on occasions different from one another,” faces a minimum sentence of fifteen years. In Hill, we highlighted three indicia of whether “two offenses committed in temporal and physical proximity constitute two offenses under -2- No. 07-3325 United States v. Tyrone Keith the ACCA, as opposed to being a single criminal episode.” 440 F.3d at 297. Offenses are “committed on occasions different from one another” under the ACCA (1) “if it is possible to discern the point at which the first offense is completed, and the subsequent point at which the second offense begins,” (2) “if it would have been possible for the offender to cease his criminal conduct after the first offense, and withdraw without committing the second offense,” and (3) “if the offenses are committed in different residences or business locations.” Id. at 297-98. In Hill the ACCA enhancement applied because there was a discernable separation between the two crimes, the defendant could have ceased his criminal activity after the first crime, and the offenses took place in different locations. Id. at 298. In this case, Keith’s criminal history shows that he committed a series of robberies at three different locations on February 8, 1998. Each robbery had a discernable point of completion, Keith could have stopped between each robbery, and each robbery took place at a different location. “All three indicia of separate offenses under the ACCA are present in this case.” Id. Accordingly, the district court correctly imposed the ACCA enhancement.