623 Fed.Appx. 306 (6th Cir. 2015), 15-3210, United States v. Austin
|Citation:||623 Fed.Appx. 306|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL T. AUSTIN, JR., Defendant-Appellant|
|Attorney:||For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Justin Seabury Gould, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Cleveland, OH. Daniel T. Austin, Jr., Defendant - Appellant: Joseph V. Pagano, Law Office, Akron, OH.|
|Judge Panel:||BEFORE: STRANCH, DONALD, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.[*]|
|Case Date:||December 03, 2015|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Sixth Circuit Rule 28(g) limits citation to specific situations. Please see Rule 28(g) before citing in a proceeding in a court in the Sixth Circuit. If cited, a copy must be served on other parties and the Court.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.
For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Justin Seabury Gould, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Cleveland, OH.
Daniel T. Austin, Jr., Defendant - Appellant: Joseph V. Pagano, Law Office, Akron, OH.
BEFORE: STRANCH, DONALD, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.[*]
Daniel T. Austin, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
The district court sentenced Austin as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because he had three prior violent felony convictions: attempted aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and aggravated robbery with a firearm specification. Austin argued that one of the cases was improperly transferred from juvenile court, but the district court rejected that argument and sentenced Austin to the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months.
Austin reasserts his argument on appeal and also argues that the holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), finding the " residual clause" of § 924(e) unconstitutionally vague, renders his sentencing as an armed career criminal erroneous. The government concedes that Johnson controls and that the sentence must be...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP