John Joseph Douglas v. United States, No. 17-3422 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Benton, Wollman, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner Case - motion to vacate. District court properly concluded two prior Minnesota convictions for first-degree aggravated robbery qualified as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3422 ___________________________ John Joseph Douglas lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: March 6, 2019 Filed: March 11, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. John Douglas was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and he was sentenced to 240 months in prison. His sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (felon in possession who has three prior convictions for “violent felony” shall be imprisoned not less than 15 years). Douglas later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence as an armed career criminal. The motion was denied, based in part on the district court’s1 conclusion that Douglas’s two prior Minnesota convictions for first-degree aggravated robbery qualified as “violent felon[ies]” for purposes of section 924(e). The district court then granted Douglas a certificate of appealability regarding that conclusion, and he appeals. After careful de novo review, we conclude that Douglas’s prior convictions were properly classified as “violent felon[ies].” See United States v. Libby, 880 F.3d 1011, 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2018) (by its terms, first-degree aggravated robbery under Minnesota law minimally requires that defendant communicate threat of violent force; as such, elements of offense categorically present “violent felony”); see also United States v. Salean, 583 F.3d 1059, 1060 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009) (for purposes of determining whether prior conviction qualified as “violent felony,” it was irrelevant that prior conviction was premised on aiding-and-abetting theory of liability). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
