United States v. David Goodwin, No. 15-1841 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. On remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration under Mathis v. U.S., 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). The government concedes defendant's sentence should be vacated, and the matter is remanded for resentencing.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1841 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. David Allen Goodwin lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: August 9, 2016 Filed: September 23, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.1 ____________ PER CURIAM. David Allen Goodwin pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a handgun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal 1 This opinion is being filed by Judge Wollman and Judge Smith pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E. to the mandatory minimum punishment of 180 months’ imprisonment. He appealed, contending that his Iowa burglary conviction did not qualify as a violent felony predicate under the Armed Career Criminal Act. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). We summarily affirmed the conviction, citing our court’s recent decision in United States v. Mathis, 786 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2015). The United States Supreme Court granted Goodwin’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of its decision in Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), which held that “[b]ecause the elements of Iowa’s burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary, Mathis’s convictions under that law cannot give rise to an ACCA sentence.” Id. at 2257. In a joint statement filed following the Supreme Court’s remand order, the government agreed with Goodwin that Goodwin’s sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. Goodwin’s sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for resentencing. ______________________________ -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.
