United States v. Robinson: Harmless‐Error Review of ACCA “Different Occasions” Findings and Due Process in Supervised Release Conditions

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Terrell Robinson, No. 23-14202 (11th Cir. June 4, 2025). Robinson challenged a 180-month sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(e), and drug‐possession convictions, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). He argued that (1) his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when a judge, rather than a jury, found by a preponderance of the evidence that his three predicate convictions were committed on different occasions (the ACCA “different occasions” requirement established in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024)), and (2) his due‐process rights were infringed when the district court failed to orally pronounce the standard conditions of supervised release, affording him no meaningful opportunity to object.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. First, it held that Robinson’s challenge under Erlinger was subject to harmless‐error review. Applying this standard, the court determined that his three predicate offenses—spanning May 2006 (cocaine delivery), October 2007 (aggravated assault), and August 2009 (cocaine delivery)—were separated by substantial gaps in time and involved distinct conduct. A rational jury would have found them to be “different occasions” beyond a reasonable doubt, so any Erlinger error was harmless. Second, the court rejected Robinson’s due‐process challenge to the supervised release conditions. The district court had referred to a written list of standard conditions (U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(a), (c)), giving Robinson notice and an opportunity to object. Under plain‐error review, no violation of due process occurred.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Erlinger v. United States (602 U.S. 821): Held that the finding of three ACCA predicate convictions “committed on occasions different from one another” must be made by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence.
Apprendi v. New Jersey (530 U.S. 466): Established that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Wooden v. United States (595 U.S. 360): Identified relevant factors for “different occasions” under ACCA—time between offenses, proximity, and whether part of the same scheme—but noted that often a single factor (time or place) is decisive.
United States v. Penn (63 F.4th 1305): Applied the ordinary meaning of “occasion” and held that offenses thirty days apart clearly occurred on different occasions.
United States v. Rivers (134 F.4th 1292): Held that failure to submit an Erlinger “different occasions” finding to a jury is non‐structural error subject to harmless‐error review, placing the burden on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found separate occasions.
United States v. Rodriguez (75 F.4th 1231): Held that due process requires a district court to orally pronounce discretionary conditions of supervised release or to clearly reference a written list at sentencing, so the defendant has an opportunity to object.
United States v. Hayden (119 F.4th 832): Clarified that plain‐error review applies when a defendant has notice of discretionary conditions but fails to object, and that a court may satisfy due process by referencing publicly available standard‐condition forms.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning unfolded in two parts:

ACCA “Different Occasions” Finding:
- Erlinger requires a jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that three predicate convictions occurred on different occasions.
- Rivers established that Erlinger errors are subject to harmless‐error review.
- Applying Wooden and Penn, the court found that Robinson’s predicates—separated by months and years, and involving distinct conduct (cocaine delivery, aggravated assault, cocaine delivery)—plainly qualified as separate occasions.
- Because no rational jury could doubt their separateness, any Erlinger violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Due Process in Supervised Release Conditions:
- Mandatory conditions of supervised release are set by statute (18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)); standard discretionary conditions are detailed in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3.
- Rodriguez requires an oral pronouncement or clear reference to a written list so defendants can object; Hayden applies plain‐error review when defendants have sufficient notice but do not object.
- The district court explicitly referred Robinson to the standard conditions in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(a), (c), which were then included verbatim in the written judgment.
- Under plain‐error review, this reference satisfied due process—Robinson had notice and a fair chance to object—so no reversible error occurred.

Impact

United States v. Robinson clarifies two critical points for future ACCA and supervised release jurisprudence:

Harmless‐Error Standard for Erlinger Violations: Even though Erlinger demands jury findings on “different occasions,” lower courts will assess such errors under the traditional harmless‐error rubric, easing appellate burdens on the government when predicates are clearly distinct.
Due Process in Sentencing Pronouncements: District courts may satisfy due‐process obligations regarding discretionary supervised release conditions by explicitly referencing a publicly available list (e.g., the Sentencing Guidelines form) at sentencing, placing the onus on defendants to object if they have concerns.

Complex Concepts Simplified

ACCA “Different Occasions” Requirement: To impose a mandatory 15‐year minimum under ACCA, a defendant must have three prior serious convictions committed on separate occasions. “Occasion” is not defined by the statute—it depends on time, location, and whether the offenses are part of the same scheme.
Erlinger Error vs. Structural Error: An Erlinger error (judge rather than jury finding separate occasions) is non‐structural—trial fairness is not fatally compromised—so courts ask whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Harmless‐Error Review: When a constitutional error occurs, reversing only if the error affected substantial rights. The government must show the outcome would be the same beyond a reasonable doubt.
Discretionary vs. Mandatory Conditions of Supervised Release: Mandatory conditions are required by statute (e.g., no new crimes, reporting to probation). Discretionary (standard) conditions are recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines and vary by district.
Plain‐Error Review: When a defendant fails to object at sentencing, an appellate court will reverse only if there is (1) error, (2) that is plain (clear or obvious), (3) affecting substantial rights, and (4) seriously undermines the fairness or integrity of the judicial process.

Conclusion

United States v. Robinson reaffirms that:

ACCA predicate convictions deemed to occur on “different occasions” by clear temporal and factual distinctions can withstand a harmless‐error review even if a jury did not make the formal finding.
District courts can preserve due process in pronouncing supervised release conditions by referencing a written list of standard conditions, shifting the responsibility to defendants to lodge objections when appropriate.

This ruling balances Sixth Amendment jury‐trial protections under ACCA with pragmatic harmless‐error principles and provides sentencing courts with clear guidance on procedural safeguards for supervised release.