Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Richard Mathis, Defendant–Appellant.

Andrew H. Kahl, Marc Krickbaum, Maureen McGuire, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office, Des Moines, IA, John D. Keller, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Richard Mathis, Oxford, WI, Pro Se.

John P. Messina, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Iowa, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant–Appellant.

Before LOKEN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of this court in United States v. Mathis , 786 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2015) (“Mathis I ”), holding that “[b]ecause the elements of Iowa's burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary, Mathis's convictions under that law cannot give rise to an ACCA [ (Armed Career Criminal Act) ] sentence.” Mathis v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). Based on the Supreme Court's action, we vacate Section II.A. of our opinion, reverse the district court's finding that Mathis has the requisite predicate “violent felonies” to be categorized as an armed career criminal under the ACCA, and remand for resentencing. For the reasons set forth in Section II.B. of our opinion, we affirm the district court in all other respects. See Mathis I , 786 F.3d at 1075–76.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

United States v. Mathis
(Aug 10, 2016)