Legal Opinion

United States v. Stephens

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided June 9, 2016No. 15-5553PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SUTTON, Circuit Judge.

At issue is whether the defendant’s sentence violates Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2557, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), which invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague. Because the defendant would receive the same sentence even without the residual clause, no reversible error occurred.

After pleading guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine, Michael Stephens received a career-offender enhancement under the guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a). The district court had several options available…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
  2. Shepard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. Descamps v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  4. Stinson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Henderson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. SavageDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2017
  2. United States v. Michael StephensCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API