Statutory Maximum Exception to Appeal Waivers in ACCA Enhancement Cases

Introduction

United States v. Joseph Gray (11th Cir. Feb. 11, 2025) addresses critical questions about the interplay between sentence-appeal waivers in federal plea agreements and the Armed Career Criminal Act’s (“ACCA”) enhanced penalties. The defendant, Joseph Gray, pled guilty in two separate District Court cases in Alabama: one for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (the “gun case”) and one for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (the “drug case”). Both plea agreements contained identical waivers of his right to appeal. At sentencing, the court applied ACCA’s mandatory enhancement—on the basis of three prior Alabama robbery convictions—and imposed concurrent 240-month terms. On appeal, Gray challenged (1) the constitutionality of his § 922(g)(1) conviction under Bruen; (2) whether his prior Alabama robberies qualified as ACCA “violent felonies”; (3) ACCA’s Fifth, Sixth Amendment and vagueness issues; (4) evidentiary rulings at his ACCA trial; and (5) guideline calculations in the drug case. The government moved to enforce the appeal waivers and invoked the concurrent-sentence bar.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit divided its ruling into three core holdings:

Enforceability of Appeal Waivers: Gray’s plea agreements contained valid, knowing and voluntary waivers of his right to appeal, which he acknowledged during the Rule 11 colloquy. Those waivers barred all of his challenges except for appeals of sentences exceeding the statutory maximum, upward guideline departures, or claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Statutory Maximum Exception: The court held—consistent with its prior dicta in United States v. Jones—that a challenge to an ACCA enhancement survives a waiver that reserves the right to appeal “any sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum.” Because Gray’s enhanced 240-month term exceeded the 180-month maximum applicable without ACCA, his ACCA arguments fell within the waiver exception.
Merits of ACCA Challenges: Even on the merits, the court rejected Gray’s contentions: (a) his prior Alabama first- and second-degree robberies qualified as ACCA violent felonies under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent; (b) ACCA’s “different occasions” element is neither unconstitutionally vague nor an improper judicial determination post-Erlinger; and (c) any evidentiary errors at his ACCA trial (admission of state records, scope of cross-examination) were harmless in light of uncontroverted officer testimony and clear temporal and geographic separations among the offenses.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Bushert v. United States (11th Cir. 1993) – Established that a sentence-appeal waiver is enforceable only if entered knowingly and voluntarily, and that either a specific colloquy reference or an unmistakable record suffices.
United States v. Boyd (11th Cir. 2020) – Held that a waiver mentioning “no appeals of sentences within the guideline range” was enforceable when the defendant signed and acknowledged the agreement and waiver.
United States v. Jones (11th Cir. 2014) – Recognized in dictum that a waiver preserving the right to appeal “any sentence in excess of the statutory maximum” encompasses ACCA challenges when the enhancement raises the sentence beyond the non-ACCA cap.
Welch & Hunt (11th Cir. 2018, 2019) – Confirmed that Alabama first- and second-degree robbery qualify as ACCA “violent felonies” under the statute’s elements-and-enumerated-offenses clauses.
Wooden v. United States (2022) – Articulated the “multi-factored,” “straightforward and intuitive” approach to determine whether prior offenses occurred on “occasions different from one another” under ACCA.
Erlinger v. United States (2024) – Resolved that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury, not a judge, to decide the different-occasions element of ACCA enhancements.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in two tracks:

Appeal Waiver Doctrine: A valid waiver of appellate rights is enforceable against any non-reserved challenge. Gray’s plea colloquy satisfied Rule 11 and Bushert’s requirements. By signing the agreements, initialing each page, and confirming on the record that he understood and voluntarily accepted the waiver—subject only to the narrow carve-outs—the defendant forfeited all appellate arguments outside those exceptions.
Statutory Maximum Exception: The court bridged Jones’s dictum and Gray’s facts to hold that Gray could challenge the ACCA enhancement because it elevated his penalty from a 15-year maximum under § 924(a)(8) to a 20-year term under § 924(e). That difference placed his sentence “in excess of the statutory maximum,” fitting squarely within the written exception in the plea agreement.

On the merits, the court reiterated that the elements of first- and second-degree Alabama robbery satisfy ACCA’s force-and-residual clauses. It found no constitutional defect in ACCA’s different-occasions requirement—mirroring Wooden’s emphasis on routine application—and no Sixth Amendment violation post-Erlinger because a jury made the dispositive finding. Evidentiary rulings were upheld as either correct or harmless, given the officers’ trial testimony fully established separate dates and locations for the robberies.

Impact

This decision carries significant implications:

Plea Practice: Defense counsel and prosecutors must carefully draft waiver clauses to reflect exceptions for statutory-maximum appeals. Parties will now more frequently litigate whether an ACCA enhancement pushes a sentence beyond the non-ACCA cap.
Appellate Strategy: Defendants will challenge ACCA enhancements under the statutory-maximum exception even when broadly waiving appeal rights, prompting circuit courts to refine guidance on calculating “statutory maximum” in complex enhancement contexts.
Clarification of ACCA Doctrine: The court reaffirmed Wooden’s practical approach to “different occasions,” and Erlinger’s jury-finding rule, offering litigants and lower courts clear signals on ACCA’s procedural and substantive boundaries.

Complex Concepts Simplified

ACCA Enhancement: A federal statute that adds a mandatory minimum of 15 years (up to life) when a felon in possession of a firearm has three prior “violent felony” or “serious drug” convictions on different occasions.
Sentence-Appeal Waiver: A contractual provision in a plea agreement where the defendant agrees not to appeal his conviction or sentence, except for narrowly defined exceptions.
Statutory Maximum Exception: A waiver carve-out preserving the defendant’s right to appeal if the sentence actually imposed exceeds the maximum penalty authorized by law absent an enhancement.
Different Occasions Inquiry: A three-factor, commonsense test (time, place, character/relationship) to decide whether prior convictions count separately under ACCA.

Conclusion

United States v. Gray clarifies that ACCA enhancements may be appealed despite broad sentence-appeal waivers when the enhanced term surpasses the non-enhanced statutory maximum. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision reinforces the enforceability standards for waivers, underscores the statutory-maximum exception first previewed in Jones, and reaffirms binding precedents on ACCA’s scope and application. Moving forward, practitioners must account for these nuances when negotiating waivers and formulating appellate arguments in ACCA cases.