United States v. Frank M. Howard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in light of Descamps, a conviction for Alabama third degree burglary does not qualify as an ACCA predicate under the enumerated crimes clause
• holding that an Alabama burglary statute was indivisible because it defined “building” with a non-exhaustive list of examples, and under Descamps “illustrative examples are not alternative elements”
• holding that a non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples of structures which can result in a burglary conviction was not a divisible element, while implying that an exhaustive list would be divisible
• finding that a disjunctive \or” statement that listed alternative places that could be burgled were “illustrative examples” and not \alternative elements”
• explaining that this Court’s “pve-Descamps decisions ... assumed that the modified categorical approach could be applied to all non-generic statutes”
• explaining that “unobjected to facts in a PSR are taken as true and may be used in determining the appropriate sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).