Whether Florida robbery is a 'violent felony' under the Armed Career Criminal Act

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Stokeling v. United States, No. 16-12951, the Court granted certiorari to review the following question: Is a state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” categorically a “violent felony” under the only remaining definition of that term in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)G) (an offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another”), if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance? Mr. Anderson was subjected to the enhanced penalties of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) based in part on an alleged prior conviction under the same Florida robbery statute that is currently under review in Stokeling. He therefore brings this petition challenging his sentence on the same grounds as those presented in Stokeling. Additionally, Mr. Anderson’s sentence was enhanced based on alleged prior convictions that were neither charged by indictment nor admitted by him during his change of plea hearing. Moreover, Mr. Anderson specifically contested that one such alleged predicate qualified as a “conviction” for purposes of the ACCA. The questions presented are: I. Whether Mr. Anderson’s sentence must be vacated because Florida robbery is not a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. II. Whether Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), should be overruled. i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no