Sentencing Guidelines

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Steven Klikno, et al. v. United States of America

Case No.: 16-2312; 17-1824; 17-1929; 17-2233; 17-2339; 17-2514

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sentencing Guidelines

The Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), provides for an enhanced sentence for an ex-felon who possesses a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), if that person has “three previous convictions … for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both … .” ACCA defines a “violent felony” to include a federal or state crime punishable by more than a year’s imprisonment that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). While that definition may seem straightforward to the uninitiated, it has spawned almost as many questions as there are federal or state crimes.

The Supreme Court has addressed this matter several times, in an effort to clarify just how much violence is required for a crime to be qualifying, and how courts are to go about assessing that issue. It most recently spoke to these issues in Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019). In each of the six cases now before us, we concluded that the ACCA enhancement applied; the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court; the Court held that petition for the decision in Stokeling; and it now has remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of Stokeling. Because each of these cases raises the same question—whether the Illinois statutes prohibiting robbery and armed robbery, 720 ILCS 5/18-1(a), 5/18-2, qualify as crimes of violence for ACCA purposes—we have consolidated them for disposition. In summary, we conclude that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling requires a different result in any of the six cases discussed here. Our conclusions follow: ∙ In No. 16-2312, we again DENY a certificate of appealability for Steven Klikno. ∙ In No. 17-1824, we AFFIRM the denial of Joseph Van Sach’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ∙ In No. 17-1929, we AFFIRM the denial of Ernest Shields’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ∙ In No. 17-2233, we AFFIRM the denial of Tony Lipscomb’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ∙ In No. 17-2339, we AFFIRM the denial of James Pinkney’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ∙ In No. 17-2514, we AFFIRM the denial of Lashon Browning’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

So Ordered

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.