United States v. Mathis, No. 14-2396 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseK, age 15, went missing. Officers tracked K's cell phone to Mathis's house. Mathis's girlfriend told officers that Mathis was not home and that she did not know K's whereabouts. Mathis, K, and other young males were actually in the house. Later, Mathis took K to his grandmother's house, where K disclosed alleged sexual abuse. Officers executed warrants, finding a loaded rifle and ammunition, and a cell phone containing nearly 6,000 text messages. Many were between Mathis and young males whom he had met on a social networking site; several were sexually explicit and showed that Mathis had traveled far to bring young males to his residence. There was a picture of a nude underage male. Mathis admitted that he owned the rifle and ammunition and that officers might find child pornography on his computer. He pled guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court found that the Armed Career Criminal Act applied and imposed a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. Mathis had five burglary convictions. The court used the modified categorical approach to determine that they were “violent felonies” and found Mathis's conviction for interference with official acts inflicting serious injury was also a violent felony. The Eighth Circuit rejected challenges to the ACCA sentencing and to imposition of a special condition of supervision requiring that is routinely applied to sex offenders.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Loken and Bye, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's prior Iowa convictions for second-degree burglary were violent felonies for purposes of sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act; no error in imposing special conditions reserved for sex offenders as the district court did not err in finding, based on the sentencing record, that defendant had committed acts of sexual abuse on minor males and that such conditions were necessary to support the public and provide defendant with correctional treatment.
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.