USA v. Odell Holder

Filing

OPINION filed : Holder's sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for resentencing -- pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court judgment. Decision not for publication. Richard F. Suhrheinrich, Eric L. Clay, and John M. Rogers (AUTHORING), Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-5666

Document: 26-2

Filed: 08/31/2015

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0613n.06
No. 14-5666
UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ODELL ANDRE HOLDER,
Defendant-Appellant.

BEFORE:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Aug 31, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case returns from the Supreme Court on remand for
further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), in which the
Supreme Court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) residual clause was void for
vagueness. 135 S. Ct. at 2564. Odell Holder was sentenced as an armed career criminal on
account of his previous convictions for violent felonies. One of Holder’s convictions was for
evading arrest, a crime which qualified as a violent felony only under the ACCA’s nowinvalidated residual clause. Because the district court relied on this conviction as one of the
three convictions necessary to trigger the ACCA’s mandatory minimum sentence, Holder must
be resentenced because he has shown the elements of plain error. Plain error review applies
because Holder did not bring a vagueness challenge against the residual clause in the district
court. See United States v. Milan, 398 F.3d 445, 450–54 (6th Cir. 2005). It is plain that Holder’s

Case: 14-5666

Document: 26-2

Filed: 08/31/2015

Page: 2

No. 14-5666
United States of America v. Holder
evading arrest conviction is no longer a violent felony under the ACCA. Even though the district
court correctly applied the law at the time of sentencing, “it is enough that an error be ‘plain’ at
the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997). The
erroneous application of the ACCA’s mandatory minimum sentence to Holder affected Holder’s
substantial rights and was an error that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public
reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, we vacate Holder’s sentence and remand his
case for resentencing.

-2-