United States v. Austin, 120315 FED6, 15-3210

Docket Nº:15-3210
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL T. AUSTIN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DANIEL T. AUSTIN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-3210

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

December 3, 2015

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: STRANCH, DONALD, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges. [*]

PER CURIAM.

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 (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 vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. See...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP