United States v. Conrad Blair

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that three burglaries counted as predicate offenses for the ACCA since they “occurred on separate occasions because the criminal episodes were distinct in time and targeted different geographic locations and victims” (citations and quotation marks omitted)
• observing that “Alleyne d[id] nothing to restrict the established exception under Almendarez–Torres that allows judges to consider prior convictions.”
• reaffirming that a judge may determine the fact of a prior conviction for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) without violating the Sixth Amendment
• holding, after Descamps, that the defendant’s constitutional argument with respect to ACCA’s different occasions requirement “fail[s] . . . because Almendarez-Torres has not been narrowed and remains the law”
• holding, after Descamps, that the defendant’s constitutional argument with respect to ACCA’s different occasions requirement “fail[s] . . . because Almendarez-Torres has not been narrowed and remains the law”
• holding, after Descamps, that the defendant’s constitutional argument with respect to ACCA’s different occasions requirement “fail[s] . . . because Almendarez-Torres has not been narrowed and remains the law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).