United States v. Paul Prater

I respectfully dissent for two reasons. First, Prater has not preserved the objection that he now raises on appeal to his designation as an Armed Career Criminal. Although Prater did make several particular objections to the district court, none of them questioned whether his prior New York felony convictions qualified as “violent felonies” for purposes of an ACCA enhancement. And because I agree with the majority opinion that the “confusion and disagreement,” Maj. Op. at 518, that mars analysis under the ACCA residual clause precludes a finding that the district court plainly erred, I would…