UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AL DORSEY - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AL DORSEY

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jan 23, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Jennifer Niles Coffin, FEDERAL DEFENDER SERVICES OF EASTERN TENNESSEE, INC., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Luke A. McLaurin, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Judge(s): McKEAGUE, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines repeatedly instruct district courts to increase a defendant’s sentence if the defendant has one or more prior convictions for a “crime of violence.” See, e.g., U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1; 4B1.1. They define “crime of violence” to mean, as relevant here, an offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another[.]” Id. § 4B1.2(a). In United States v. Gloss, 661 F.3d 317 (6th Cir. 2011), we interpreted language identical to this so-called “elements clause” to cover the Tennessee crime of facilitating aggravated robbery. Id. at 318–20.

Viewing itself bound by Gloss, the district court in this case treated Al Dorsey’s prior convictions for facilitating aggravated robbery as “crimes of violence.” Dorsey now offers two reasons why we need not follow Gloss. He first asserts that Gloss conflicts with an earlier decision holding that facilitation offenses (unlike aiding-and-abetting offenses) do not require defendants to harbor an intent to commit the crime that their conduct facilitated. See United States v. Vanhook, 640 F.3d 706, 713–14 (6th Cir. 2011). He next asserts that Gloss conflicts with a later Supreme Court decision holding that the elements clause does not reach reckless uses of force. See Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420, 429 (2021) (plurality opinion); id. at 445–46 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment). Dorsey is wrong on both counts. Because we must follow Gloss, we affirm.

Attachments: