USA v. Eugene Bernardini, No. 13-6180 (6th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 21, 2014.
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0704n.06 FILED No. 13-6180 Oct 20, 2015 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUGENE BERNARDINI, Defendant-Appellant. BEFORE: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE BATCHELDER and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; BECKWITH, District Judge. PER CURIAM. This case returns from the Supreme Court on remand for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) residual clause was void for vagueness. 135 S. Ct. at 2564. The Court did not disturb “the remainder of the Act’s definition of a violent felony.” Id. In his pre-Johnson appeal to this court, Bernardini argued that his conviction for robbery in Tennessee under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-401 was not a violent felony and thus not a basis for sentencing him under the ACCA. We affirmed Bernardini’s sentence because we had previously held in a different case that a conviction for robbery under that statute was a violent felony as provided for by both the ACCA’s use-of-force clause and its residual clause. See United States v. Bernardini, 583 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Mitchell, 743 F.3d 1054, 1060, 1062 (6th Cir. 2014)). Johnson left No. 13-6180 United States v. Bernardini the ACCA’s use-of-force clause undisturbed, and Bernardini’s robbery conviction is still a violent felony under the ACCA’s use-of-force clause. Although the district court held only that Bernardini’s robbery conviction was a violent felony under the residual clause, we may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Gill, 685 F.3d 606, 609 (6th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm Bernardini’s sentence. -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.
