First Circuit· 4/5/2017

United States v. Faust

Citations

853 F.3d 39
2017 WL 1244844
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5918

How courts have described this case

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

holding that categorical analysis under ACCA must be conducted as to the state of the law'at the time of the defendant’s conviction
explaining that - under the categorical approach, a court must first determine “whether all of the conduct covered by the statute categorically requires violent force”
holding intentional ABPO is not a violent felony under the ACCA's identical force clause
declining to consider subsequent judicial interpretations of an unchanged statute for purposes of applying the categorical approach under the ACCA
citing, inter alia, Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005)
reaffirming that “offensive assault and battery does not qualify as requiring ‘violent force’ under Johnson I...[as] has been recognized in this circuit long before Johnson I and ever since the first case to apply assault and battery as an ACCA predicate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Torruella, Lynch, Barron

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

55 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

58 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Faust

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.