USA v. Odell Holder, No. 14-5666 (6th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 24, 2015.
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0613n.06 No. 14-5666 UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ODELL ANDRE HOLDER, Defendant-Appellant. BEFORE: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED Aug 31, 2015 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. 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 which the Supreme Court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (ACCA) residual clause was void for vagueness. 135 S. Ct. at 2564. Odell Holder was sentenced as an armed career criminal on account of his previous convictions for violent felonies. One of Holder’s convictions was for evading arrest, a crime which qualified as a violent felony only under the ACCA’s nowinvalidated residual clause. Because the district court relied on this conviction as one of the three convictions necessary to trigger the ACCA’s mandatory minimum sentence, Holder must be resentenced because he has shown the elements of plain error. Plain error review applies because Holder did not bring a vagueness challenge against the residual clause in the district court. See United States v. Milan, 398 F.3d 445, 450–54 (6th Cir. 2005). It is plain that Holder’s No. 14-5666 United States of America v. Holder evading arrest conviction is no longer a violent felony under the ACCA. Even though the district court correctly applied the law at the time of sentencing, “it is enough that an error be ‘plain’ at the time of appellate consideration.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997). The erroneous application of the ACCA’s mandatory minimum sentence to Holder affected Holder’s substantial rights and was an error that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, we vacate Holder’s sentence and remand his case 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.
