US v. Furlow:
Furlow pleaded guilty to both a drug charge and being a felon in possession of
a firearm. In the PSR he was designated both as a career offender and
ACCA-eligible, due partly to prior convictions in Georgia for arson and South
Carolina for distribution of crack. As to the arson, Furlow argued that the
term arson as used in the ACCA and the Guidelines was unconstitutionally vague,
but didn’t argue anything about the definition of generic arson. As to the drug
charge, he argued that the South Carolina statute included merely purchasing
(rather than selling) a controlled substance and was broader than the
definitions for “serious drug offense” and “controlled substance offense.” The
district court disagreed and eventually imposed concurrent sentences of 180
months in prison.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the sentence. On the arson, Furlow changed his strategy on appeal, ditching the
vagueness argument and instead arguing that the Georgia offense was broader
than the generic definition of arson, particularly because it did not require a
mens rea of maliciousness. This left
Furlow facing plain error review and the court concluded that any error was not
plain, rejecting Furlow’s contention that an earlier Fourth Circuit case had
required maliciousness as the mens rea
element for generic arson. As to the South Carolina drug conviction, the court
concluded that the modified categorical approach was appropriate and that when
the proper documents were consulted it was clear that Furlow had been convicted
of distribution of drugs.
No comments:
Post a Comment