USA v. James Bonny Geffrard, No. 14-14664 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-14664 Date Filed: 04/19/2016 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-14664 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20265-JEM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES BONNY GEFFRARD, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (April 19, 2016) Case: 14-14664 Date Filed: 04/19/2016 Page: 2 of 3 Before MARCUS, DUBINA, and MELLOY, * Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: James Geffrard was sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment -- the mandatory minimum sentence required by the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(b) -- after pleading guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1); three counts of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1); and one count of possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). The district court sentenced Geffrard under ACCA after finding that he had three qualifying prior convictions, one of which -- fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer in violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.1935(1) -- qualified as a violent felony under the residual clause of ACCA. Geffrard has appealed his sentence, arguing, in part, that his conviction for fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer should not qualify as a violent felony under ACCA because ACCA’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. Subsequent to this appeal being filed, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), striking down the residual clause as void for vagueness. The government now concedes, as it must, that the residual * Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 14-14664 Date Filed: 04/19/2016 Page: 3 of 3 clause of ACCA is unconstitutional, and that Geffrard’s conviction for fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer can no longer support an ACCA sentencing enhancement. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in sentencing Geffrard based on his previous conviction for fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer under the now-unconstitutional residual clause of ACCA. Geffrard must be resentenced without reference to the residual clause. We leave it to the district court on remand to determine in the first instance: (1) whether to consider a burglary conviction listed in Geffrard’s Presentence Investigation Report, when the government did not argue that the court should consider that conviction at Geffrard’s original sentencing; and (2) if the district court does consider the burglary conviction, whether that conviction qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA’s elements or enumerated crimes clauses. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). VACATED AND REMANDED. 3
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.
