Challenging ACCA Enhancements: Sentences Exceeding Statutory Maximum as Exception to Appeal Waiver

Introduction

United States v. Joseph Gray (Nos. 23-11334 & 23-11335) addresses the intersection of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) and sentence-appeal waivers in the plea context. Defendant Joseph Gray pled guilty to (1) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (“gun case”) and (2) possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (“drug case”). At sentencing, the district court applied an ACCA enhancement—triggered by three prior Alabama robbery convictions—resulting in concurrent 240-month terms on each count. Gray’s plea agreements contained identical waivers of direct appeal rights, except for three narrow carve-outs: (a) sentences above the statutory maximum, (b) upward departures or variances, and (c) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

On appeal, Gray raised multiple challenges: the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) post-Bruen; whether his prior Alabama robbery convictions qualified as “violent felonies” under the ACCA; due-process and Sixth Amendment objections to the ACCA’s “different occasions” requirement; evidentiary objections to the admission of state-court records; and an Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence. The Eleventh Circuit was called upon to sort which issues survived Gray’s appeal waiver and to resolve the remaining ACCA arguments.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit divided its decision into waiver issues and substantive ACCA challenges:

Waiver enforceability: Applying United States v. Bushert and United States v. Boyd, the court held that Gray’s waivers were knowing and voluntary. The plea colloquy explicitly alerted him that he gave up his right to appeal except for the listed carve-outs, and Gray confirmed his understanding.
Statutory-maximum exception: The court recognized that Gray’s ACCA enhancement raised his maximum possible sentence for the gun case from 15 years to life. Because he received 20 years—beyond the 15-year statutory maximum that would have applied absent ACCA—the carve-out for “any sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum” applied. That made the ACCA enhancement itself reviewable on direct appeal despite the waiver.
Violent-felony status: Gray had argued his Alabama robbery convictions did not qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA. This claim was foreclosed by binding Eleventh Circuit precedent: Welch (first-degree robbery) and Hunt (second-degree robbery).
Constitutionality and jury trial: The court held that (a) the ACCA is not unconstitutionally vague; (b) its multi-factor “different occasions” test (from Wooden v. United States) is “straightforward and intuitive”; and (c) the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury determination of predicate-conviction timing, compliance with which Gray received (Erlinger).
Evidentiary rulings: Even assuming the district court erred by admitting state-court business records or excluding sentencing-date argument, the error was harmless in light of unchallenged eyewitness testimony establishing that each robbery occurred on a different date and at different locations.

Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and upheld the 240-month sentence on the gun case and the concurrent drug-possession term.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1993): Established that a sentence-appeal waiver is valid if “knowing and voluntary,” which can be shown either by a Rule 11 colloquy question on the waiver or by clear record evidence that the defendant understood its effect.
United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2020): Clarified that even partial mention of appeal rights in colloquy, combined with a signed plea agreement and defendant’s acknowledgment, suffices to enforce a waiver.
Welch (In re): Held that Alabama first-degree robbery categorically qualifies as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s force clause.
Hunt, 941 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019): Extended Welch to Alabama second-degree robbery.
Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022): Articulated the multi-factor “different occasions” test for ACCA predicates—considering time, location, and relationship of offenses.
Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840 (2024): Held that the Constitution requires a jury, not a judge, to decide whether prior convictions occurred on separate occasions under the ACCA enhancement inquiry.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s path was twofold:

Waiver scope and carve-out: The court reaffirmed that a defendant may bargain away virtually all appellate rights, including constitutional claims, so long as the waiver is knowing and voluntary. Having confirmed Gray’s understanding at the plea hearing and in his signed agreements, the court enforced the waiver except as to sentences above the statutory maximum. It adopted dicta from Jones (recognizing an ACCA-based sentence increase as exceeding the statutory maximum) and concluded Gray’s 240-month term on the § 922(g) count was reviewable.
Review of remaining ACCA challenges:
- Violent-felony qualification: Precedent controlled; no error in finding Alabama robbery a crime of violence.
- Constitutional challenges: The ACCA’s “different occasions” test is neither vague nor judge-only; a jury found each offense separate, satisfying Wooden and Erlinger.
- Evidentiary rulings: Even if business-records admission or exclusion of cross-examination on sentencing dates were erroneous, the robust eyewitness testimony ensured harmlessness.

3. Impact on Future Cases

This decision cements three key points:

ACCA carve-out clarity: Defendants who waive direct appeal retain the right to challenge any sentence “in excess of the statutory maximum”—a principle likely to guide plea negotiations and appellate strategy nationwide.
Stability of ACCA predicates: Post-Welch and Hunt, Alabama robbery convictions remain firmly classified as violent felonies, streamlining ACCA inquiries in Eleventh Circuit prosecutions.
Vagueness and jury trial rule: The court’s reaffirmation of the multi-factor “different occasions” test and endorsement of jury fact-finding under Erlinger provides a blueprint for lower courts in ACCA-enhancement proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sentence-appeal waiver: A contractual promise by a defendant, made in a plea agreement, not to challenge certain aspects of conviction or sentence on appeal. Such waivers are enforceable if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily gives up the right, normally confirmed by a colloquy under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
Statutory maximum vs. guideline range: The statutory maximum is the highest prison term Congress authorizes for an offense. Sentencing Guidelines provide an advisory range. Gray reserved the right to appeal only if his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum (not merely the guideline range).
ACCA enhancement: Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), a felon-in-possession who has three prior violent-felony or serious-drug convictions “committed on occasions different from one another” faces a mandatory minimum of 15 years and up to life in prison, instead of the usual maximum of 10 or 15 years.
Different-occasions test: From Wooden, courts look at when each offense occurred, how far apart in time and place they were, and whether they were part of a continuous series of acts. Separate dates or distant locations typically satisfy the “different occasions” requirement.

Conclusion

United States v. Gray clarifies the scope of appeal waivers in ACCA cases: even a broad waiver cannot bar an appeal of a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum as enhanced by ACCA. The decision reaffirms settled precedents on Alabama robbery as ACCA predicates, dispels any notion of ACCA vagueness, and confirms the necessity of a jury finding under Erlinger. Going forward, plea practitioners will need to address explicitly the statutory-maximum carve-out when negotiating waivers, and appellate advocates will find a firm basis for reviewing ACCA enhancements that push defendants past their non-enhanced statutory caps.