Erlinger ACCA “Different Occasions” Error Is Harmless When the PSR Shows Predicate Offenses Years Apart

1. Introduction

United States v. Jamaal Hameen (11th Cir. Apr. 22, 2026) returns to the Eleventh Circuit on a Supreme Court grant-vacate-remand after Erlinger v. United States, which required that a jury—not a judge—find beyond a reasonable doubt that Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) predicates were “committed on occasions different from one another.” The defendant, Jamaal A. Hameen, was convicted of felon-in-possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced under ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), to a mandatory minimum of 15 years.

The remand narrowed the appellate question to a single issue: whether it was reversible error for the sentencing judge (rather than the jury) to decide the ACCA “different occasions” fact, and if so, whether that error was harmless in this case.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The panel (per curiam) holds:

• Error: Under Erlinger v. United States, it was error for the judge to determine the “different occasions” requirement by a preponderance of the evidence.
• Harmlessness: Following United States v. Rivers, the error is subject to harmless-error review, and the government met its burden because the PSR showed the predicate offenses occurred years—indeed decades—apart.
• Disposition: The sentence is affirmed; the remainder of the court’s earlier decision (already rejecting other claims) is reinstated.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024)

Role in this case: Erlinger supplies the governing constitutional rule: when a fact “increase[s] the prescribed range of penalties,” the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find it beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically for ACCA, the “different occasions” determination must be made by a jury unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.

How it shaped the outcome: The panel treats the judge-made “different occasions” finding as legal error under Erlinger. The remaining question becomes remedial—whether the error requires resentencing.

United States v. Rivers, 134 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2025)

Role in this case: Rivers provides the Eleventh Circuit’s post-Erlinger framework: (1) Erlinger errors are not structural and thus (2) are reviewed for harmlessness; and (3) the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the predicates occurred on different occasions.

How it shaped the outcome: The panel considers itself controlled by Rivers both on the standard of review and on what materials may be consulted in conducting harmless-error analysis. Notably, the opinion emphasizes that Rivers consulted the PSR in evaluating harmlessness and concludes it is “likewise free” to do so here.

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999)

Role in this case: Neder is used (through Rivers) to distinguish structural errors from trial errors. Structural errors are those that render a proceeding “fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.”

How it shaped the outcome: By importing Neder’s structural-error framework, the court affirms that the absence of a jury finding on “different occasions” does not automatically require reversal; it can be harmless.

Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022)

Role in this case: Wooden supplies the Supreme Court’s interpretive guidance for “occasions” under ACCA, including the practical benchmark that courts “nearly always” treat offenses as separate occasions if committed “a day or more apart.”

How it shaped the outcome: The panel uses Wooden’s time-based benchmark to conclude the harmlessness inquiry is straightforward: with predicates separated by eight and eighteen years, no rational jury could find a single occasion.

United States v. Hameen, Nos. 19-14279 & 22-12968, 2023 WL 6053541 (11th Cir. Sep. 18, 2023)

Role in this case: The earlier Eleventh Circuit decision provides procedural posture: all claims were previously rejected, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded solely for reconsideration in light of Erlinger, and the panel reinstates the prior disposition except for the ACCA “different occasions” issue.

Hameen v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2712 (Mem.) (2024)

Role in this case: The Supreme Court’s memorandum disposition is the vehicle for remand and signals that Erlinger is the relevant intervening authority.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Identify the constitutional/statutory fact at issue: ACCA increases the statutory penalty range when the defendant has qualifying predicates “committed on occasions different from one another.” After Erlinger, that “different occasions” fact is for a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Recognize the trial-level error: The sentencing judge, relying on the PSR, made the different-occasions finding and applied ACCA’s mandatory minimum—precisely what Erlinger forbids.
3. Select the remedial framework: The panel applies Rivers, holding the error is not structural and is reviewed for harmlessness. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found different occasions.
4. Determine what evidence can be used on harmlessness: Pointing to Rivers’s reliance on the PSR, the panel concludes it may consult the PSR in its harmless-error analysis here.
5. Apply the “occasions” guidance to the facts: The PSR listed predicate offense dates in 1990, 2008, and 2016. Using Wooden’s “day or more apart” benchmark, the panel finds it “simply inconceivable” that any two predicates were on the same occasion.
6. Conclude harmlessness and affirm: Because the time gaps are so large, the court finds the Sixth Amendment error harmless and affirms the ACCA-enhanced sentence.

C. Impact

Although “NOT FOR PUBLICATION,” the opinion is significant as an application of binding circuit precedent (Rivers) in the post-Erlinger landscape and illustrates how harmless-error review will function in practice.

• Routine affirmance where dates are far apart: Defendants whose predicate offenses are separated by substantial time will face an uphill battle obtaining relief for an Erlinger violation; the government can often meet harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt using offense dates alone.
• Expanded salience of PSRs on appeal: By expressly relying on the PSR (because Rivers did), the opinion underscores that appellate courts may treat PSR-reported timing details as central to harmlessness—potentially shifting litigation toward PSR accuracy/objections and Shepard-type document disputes in closer cases.
• Practical narrowing of Erlinger remedies: While Erlinger constitutionalizes the decision-maker and burden of proof, this case demonstrates that remedy will often depend on whether the record makes any contrary jury finding plausible.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act)

A federal statute that increases penalties for certain firearm offenders who have at least three qualifying prior convictions, including a requirement that those convictions arose from crimes committed on “occasions different from one another.”

“Different occasions” inquiry

A fact-intensive determination about whether prior crimes were separate episodes rather than part of a single event. Courts consider timing, location, and the character/purpose of the offenses.

Beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest proof standard used in criminal law (required for facts that increase punishment ranges under Erlinger). “Preponderance” is a lower civil-like standard (“more likely than not”), previously used by judges at sentencing for many facts.

Structural error vs. harmless error

Structural errors automatically require reversal because they infect the entire framework of the trial. Harmless errors do not require reversal if the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt the outcome would have been the same without the error.

PSR (Pre-Sentence Investigation Report)

A report prepared for sentencing containing background and criminal-history information. Here, it supplied the dates of the predicate offenses that drove the harmlessness conclusion.

5. Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit confirms that, after Erlinger v. United States, it is unconstitutional for a judge to make the ACCA “different occasions” finding by a preponderance of the evidence. But applying United States v. Rivers, it holds the error is subject to harmless-error review and is harmless where the PSR shows predicate offenses separated by many years—well beyond Wooden v. United States’ “day or more apart” benchmark. The case thus illustrates a key post-Erlinger reality: the Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination may not yield resentencing where the temporal separation of predicates makes any other verdict irrational.