United States v. Matchett, No. 14-10396 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession and subsequently challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm and the calculation of his sentence. This appeal presents an issue of first impression: whether the vagueness doctrine of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the vagueness doctrine applies only to laws that prohibit conduct and fix punishments, not advisory guidelines. The court concluded that the district court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress. Further, the district court properly determined that defendant's previous convictions for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling were crimes of violence and that defendant’s resistance created a substantial risk of death or bodily injury in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer. The court rejected defendant's argument that the definition of “crime of violence” in the Sentencing Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.