USA v. Eric Hall
Filing
Per Curiam OPINION filed : We VACATE Hall s sentence and REMAND his case to the district court where it is to be held in abeyance pending the outcome of United States v. Stitt, decision not for publication. Danny J. Boggs, Richard F. Suhrheinrich and David W. McKeague, Circuit Judges.
Case: 15-6202
Document: 27-2
Filed: 10/04/2016
Page: 1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0562n.06
Case No. 15-6202
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERIC HALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Oct 04, 2016
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before: BOGGS, SUHRHEINRICH, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM. Defendant Eric Hall pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and was sentenced to 180 months (15 years) in prison.
Hall’s sentence was driven in part by his classification as an armed career criminal under the
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which provides for a 15-year mandatory minimum
sentence for any person convicted under § 922(g) who has three prior convictions for a “violent
felony.” See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Hall has four convictions that the district court deemed
qualifying violent felonies under the ACCA: one for burglary, TENN. CODE ANN. § 39-14-402,
one for robbery, TENN. CODE ANN. § 39-13-401, and two for aggravated burglary, TENN. CODE
ANN. § 39-14-403.
Case: 15-6202
Document: 27-2
Filed: 10/04/2016
Page: 2
Case No. 15-6202
USA v. Eric Hall
Hall objected below to the use of his burglary and robbery convictions as ACCA
predicate offenses and on appeal also challenges the inclusion of his convictions for aggravated
burglary. Because this circuit has deemed robbery in Tennessee to be a violent felony, see
United States v. Taylor, 800 F.3d 701, 719 (6th Cir. 2015), whether Hall’s ACCA sentence
enhancement was warranted turns on whether his convictions for aggravated burglary were
appropriately classified. The Supreme Court recently clarified the analysis that courts are to
employ when determining whether a state crime qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA,
see Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), and both parties acknowledge that Hall’s
case should be remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of this intervening
precedent.
We agree. However, upon remand, we instruct the district court to hold Hall’s case in
abeyance pending the outcome of United States v. Stitt, No. 14-6158, which is currently before
this circuit en banc. The issue in Stitt—whether circuit precedent correctly classifies Tennessee
aggravated burglary as a generic violent felony for ACCA purposes—will directly influence the
outcome of this case. Once Stitt has been decided, we leave to the district court to determine in
the first instance whether Hall was properly classified as an armed career criminal and
accordingly whether his ACCA sentencing enhancement was warranted.
Additionally, in issuing Hall’s written judgment, the district court imposed a condition of
supervised release that was not imposed orally at sentencing, which, as the government
concedes, constituted an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Carpenter, 702 F.3d 882, 884
(6th Cir. 2012); United States v. Swanson, 209 F. App’x 522, 524 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing United
States v. Schultz, 855 F.2d 1217, 1225 (6th Cir. 1988)). Thus, Hall’s judgment must be vacated
-2-
Case: 15-6202
Document: 27-2
Filed: 10/04/2016
Page: 3
Case No. 15-6202
USA v. Eric Hall
and, upon remand, the district court must ensure that Hall’s final written judgment conforms to
the one pronounced at sentencing.
Accordingly, we VACATE Hall’s sentence and REMAND his case to the district court
where it is to be held in abeyance pending the outcome of United States v. Stitt.
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?