whether-federal-court-may-increase-sentence-under-acca

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a federal court may increase a defendant’s sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) by relying on its own finding about non-elemental facts to conclude a defendant’s prior offenses were “committed on occasions different from one another.” 2. If so, whether the federal court may rely solely on the non-elemental dates alleged in the state court charging documents, absent a transcript of the colloquy in which the defendant confirmed the factual basis for the plea, to find that the prior offenses were committed on different occasions. 3. Whether the ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense” requires knowledge of the substance’s illicit nature, an issue left undecided in Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 787 n.3 (2020). 4. Whether a defendant’s guilty plea entered before Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2020), in which the defendant was not advised of the essential elements of the crime with which he was charged, constitutes a due process violation requiring vacatur of the guilty plea. i PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE United States District Court (M.D. Fla.): United States v. Jermaine Isaac Ross, No. 8:17-cr-292-T-24CPT (Aug. 23, 2018) United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.): United States v. Jermaine Isaac Ross, No. 18-13778 (Mar. 17, 2020) ii