USA v. James Jerry, Jr.

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant James Clifton Jerry, Jr.. Decision: Vacated and Remanded. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 14-13387

Date Filed: 12/28/2015

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13387
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80027-KAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES CLIFTON JERRY, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 28, 2015)

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-13387

Date Filed: 12/28/2015

Page: 2 of 2

James Jerry appeals his 180-month sentence, after pleading guilty to one
count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g), 924(e). Jerry challenges his enhanced sentence under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (ACCA) on multiple grounds, including that the residual clause is
void for vagueness.
Under the ACCA, a person who violates § 922(g) and has three prior
convictions “for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on
occasions different from one another” is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence
of 15 years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The ACCA defines “violent felony” in several
ways, one of which is commonly called the residual clause. Under that clause, a
violent felony is any offense that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a
serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Id. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The district court sentenced Jerry under the ACCA after finding that he had
three qualifying prior convictions, all three of which qualified under the residual
clause. Jerry argued both before the district court and in his opening brief on
appeal that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. In light of Johnson v.
United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the Government concedes that Jerry is
correct. See id. at 2563. We vacate and remand for resentencing without reference
to the residual clause.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2