One of the most common complaints one hears in the practice of appellate law is: The Government is never held to the same standard as the criminal defendant on appeal. Whether it’s waiver during the trial-level proceedings, or a purported waiver during oral argument or in the briefing, it often seems like appellate courts give the Government a degree of latitude that is not usually afforded to the defense. This case is an exception and a refreshing reminder to the Government that not dotting i’s and crossing t’s can have some meaningful consequences.
In United States v. Reyes-Rivas, the defendant/appellant argued during sentencing and on appeal that he did not meet the criteria for a “career offender” enhancement under section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, he argued one of his priors – a Puerto Rico conviction for fourth degree aggravated battery – did not qualify as a “crime of violence.” He also argued that the conviction could not qualify as a “crime of violence” under the residual clause of section 4B1.1. He reasoned that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) applied to the career offender enhancement because the residual clause language in the Armed Career Criminal Act was almost identical to the residual clause language in the Sentencing Guidelines.
One of Richard Della Fera’s practice areas of expertise is Appellate law, both State and Federal. When you need an experienced Appellate lawyer on your side, call today.