United States v. Langston, No. 14-1073 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegally possessing a firearm. The district court sentenced defendant to 180 months in prison, the mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that, by the plain language of the Iowa Code, defendant's terrorism conviction is a violent felony requiring the use of force, threat, or intimidation, and defendant's terrorism conviction is a violent felony under section 924(e)(2)(B)(I). Defendant's conviction of going armed with intent under Iowa Code section 708.8 is also a predicate violent felony where section 708.8 falls under the residual clause of section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii); there was no Sixth Amendment violation under Alleyne v. United States; because the challenged enhancement was based solely on defendant's prior felony drug conviction, it continues to fall under the recidivism exception to the jury presentation requirement; and the district court properly determined that defendant has four predicate offenses and is an armed career criminal for sentencing purposes.
Court Description: Criminal Case - sentence. Prior conviction for terrorism and going armed with intent qualify as violent felonies. Iowa's terrorism statute falls under section 924(e)(2)(B)(I) for force involving the element of violence. Under the categorical approach, the terrorism conviction required the use of force, threat, or intimidation. Also, the conviction for going armed with intent is also a predicate violent felony, under the residual clause of section 924(e)(2)B)(ii). Langton's Sixth Amendment argument fails, as the challenged enhancemnet falls under the recidivism exception to the jury presentation requirement. The district court properly determined Langston had four predicate offenses and is an armed career criminal.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 6, 2015.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 9, 2015.
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.