United States v. Seth Huntington, No. 21-3399 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). The district court imposed a fifteen-year mandatory-minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act after concluding that Defendant had three prior violent felonies: two for third-degree assault; and another for first-degree burglary with assault. Defendant argued that none of these convictions were violent felonies, however, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
The court explained that there are two ways for a prior conviction to count. One is through the “enumerated-offenses clause,” which lists offenses that qualify. The other is if the offense “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” otherwise known as the “force clause.” Defendant’s final conviction was for first-degree burglary, which is a “divisible” crime. The particular version he committed was first-degree burglary with assault, which as the name suggests, required him to commit an assault during the course of a burglary. This crime uses the same definition of “assault” as the others, which means it is a “violent felony” too. Defendant argues that Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) suggests that an assault can never qualify as a violent felony. However, n Minnesota, assault requires intentional conduct, and Borden only “excludes crimes that can be committed recklessly.”
Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Stras, Melloy, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's two convictions for third-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.2 were violent felonies for purposes of ACCA sentencing; defendant's first-degree burglary with assault conviction in violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.582, subdiv. 1(c) was also a violent felony for ACCA purposes, and the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an Armed Career Criminal.
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.