United States v. Kevin Earl Sneed

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Shepard abrogated prior panel precedent, and required the holding that “courts may not use police reports to determine whether predicate offenses ... were committed on” different occasions
• holding that “sentencing courts may look to certain facts underlying [a] prior conviction” in making the “different occasions inquiry,” but must limit themselves to Shepard-approved sources
• holding that district courts may still “look to certain facts underlying the prior conviction” to determine if the prior offenses were committed on different occasions for purposes of the ACCA, provided they rely “only [on] Shepard-approved sources”
• recognizing that while Shepard abrogated Richardson’s approval of the use of police reports to determine whether prior convictions were committed on different occasions, “Richardson remains correct” that the different occasions inquiry requires looking at the facts underlying the conviction
• holding, based on Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. at 23-26, that “courts may not use police reports to determine whether predicate offenses under [18 U.S.C.] § 924[e][l] were committed on ‘occasions different from one another’ ”
• stating that, under the prior panel precedent rule, “a prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).