United States v. Adonis Adolph Dorman, No. 11-3410 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not err in sentencing defendant as an Armed Career Criminal as his Minnesota conviction for fourth-degree sexual conduct was a predicate violent felony for ACCA purposes; constitutional challenge to residual clause of ACCA rejected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 11-3410 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Adonis Adolph Dorman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: October 15, 2012 Filed: October 31, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Adonis Dorman appeals the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months imposed by the district court1 following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession 1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Due to his criminal history, the district court determined that Dorman qualified for sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and Dorman challenges two rulings related to this determination. However, we reject Dorman's argument that his prior Minnesota conviction for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct2 is not a predicate violent felony under the ACCA. See United States v. Scudder, 648 F.3d 630, 633-34 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that a conviction under a substantially similar Indiana child molestation statute was categorically a violent felony). Similarly, his argument that the residual clause of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague is foreclosed both by Supreme Court precedent and by our court's precedent. See James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192, 210 n.6 (2007) (noting that the Court was "not persuaded" by Justice Scalia's dissenting position that the residual provision of the ACCA is unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Childs, 403 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting defendant's vagueness argument). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ 2 Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.345. -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.
