United States v. Tyquez Ursery, No. 20-5218 (6th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0681n.06 CASE No. 20-5218 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TYQUEZ URSERY, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED Dec 03, 2020 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Before: BATCHELDER, CLAY, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. When sentencing Tyquez Ursery as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the district court found that three of his prior convictions were predicate felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act, § 924(e)(2)(B), triggering the mandatory minimum sentence, § 924(e)(1). Those were Tennessee convictions for aggravated burglary, T.C.A. § 39-14-403, facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, and facilitation of attempted especially aggravated robbery, T.C.A. §§ 39-11-403, & -13-403. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, Tennessee aggravated burglary is an ACCA predicate offense. See Brumbach v. United States, 929 F.3d 791, 794 (6th Cir. 2019). And in United States v. Gloss, 661 F.3d 317, 320 (6th Cir. 2011), we held that Tennessee “facilitation of aggravated robbery is a violent felony within the meaning of § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).” Although Ursery’s convictions were not for facilitation of aggravated robbery, the only difference between “Tennessee aggravated robbery” and “Tennessee especially aggravated robbery” is that aggravated robbery includes as an element that the robbery be “[a]ccomplished with a deadly weapon or by display of any article used or fashioned to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly Case No. 20-5218, United States v. Ursery weapon,” T.C.A. § 39–13–402, while especially aggravated robbery requires that the robbery be “[a]ccomplished with a deadly weapon,” T.C.A. § 39–13–403. Therefore, Gloss is directly on point. Ursery argues that neither offense should be an ACCA predicate. Even if he were correct, this panel cannot overrule published circuit precedent. See Brumbach, 929 F.3d at 795. Ursery also argues that the two facilitation convictions should count as a single predicate because, even though they were committed on different dates (19 days apart), the date of the offense(s) was not an element of the crime. But, again, circuit precedent forecloses this argument. See United States v. Hennessee, 932 F.3d 437, 443-44 (6th Cir. 2019). We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 2
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.
