US v. Span: Span pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the Government argued that he qualified for an enhanced sentence under ACCA thanks to four prior North Carolina robbery convictions. It provided state court documents - indictments, judgment, and a plea "transcript" (actually a filled in form) - to support its position. Span agreed that the convictions qualified as "violent felonies," but argued that the Government had not proven that they occurred "on occasions different from one another." In particular, the dates of the offenses on the various documents provided by the Government were inconsistent. The district court concluded that ACCA applied based on three of the four priors, that the date discrepancies were likely typographical errors, and that the robberies were "separate criminal episodes" that involved different individual victims (although they all involved the same business). Span was sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of 180 months in prison.
On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit vacated Span's sentence. Noting that while the ultimate conclusion that ACCA applied was a legal one subject to de novo review, the court reviewed the district court's factual determinations only for clear error. Nonetheless, it found clear error in the district court's conclusion that the three prior convictions occurred on occasions different from one another. Looking to the Government's documents, the court recognized that '[n]o single offense date for any predicate robbery conviction is consisted across all three sources." In light of those discrepancies, the district court clearly erred in its conclusion. Without that factual finding, the legal conclusion that ACCA applied was also incorrect. As a result, Span's sentence was vacated (the court did not reach Span's constitutional challenge to the ACCA finding).
Judge Motz dissented, arguing that the majority had misapplied the clear error standard. She argued that the district court's conclusion about when the offenses occurred was plausible, although possibly incorrect. Given the deference afforded factual determinations on appeal, such a conclusion was not clearly erroneous.
Congrats to the Defender office in Western NC on the win!