William Sanders v. United States, No. 19-3009 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Benton and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Where Sanders claimed his sentence under the ACCA was invalid in light of Johnson, the district court did not err in concluding Sanders did not meet his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the residual clause led the sentencing court to apply the ACCA enhancement.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3009 ___________________________ William Leroy Sanders lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: September 25, 2020 Filed: October 5, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. William Leroy Sanders appeals after the district court1 denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and granted a certificate of appealability on his claim that his sentence 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), is invalid in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 606 (2015) (invalidating residual clause of ACCA as unconstitutionally vague). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. This court concludes Sanders did not meet his burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the residual clause led the sentencing court to apply the ACCA enhancement. See Dembry v. United States, 914 F.3d 1185, 1187 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review); Golinveaux v. United States, 915 F.3d 564, 56768 (8th Cir. 2019) (movant bringing Johnson claim must show by preponderance of evidence that residual clause led sentencing court to apply ACCA enhancement). The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
