Latest Updates

June 2024 Federal ACCA Crime of Violence Developments

Supreme Court activity involving Delligatti crime-of-violence review, pending Rahimi, Erlinger, and Grants Pass decisions, ACCA resentencing after Borden, and BOP relief statistics for the week of June 3–7, 2024.

Federal Sentencing Developments Overview

June 2024 Federal ACCA Crime of Violence Developments included Supreme Court activity involving Delligatti v. United States, pending constitutional criminal-law cases, and a favorable Fourth Circuit resentencing decision involving ACCA, § 922(g), South Carolina criminal domestic violence, and Borden.

This weekly update highlights developments from June 3–7, 2024, including 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), crime-of-violence analysis, failure-to-act offenses, bodily injury or death elements, ACCA violent-felony predicates, Borden v. United States, § 922(g)(1), pending Supreme Court decisions, and BOP relief statistics.

This federal relief update is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create legal representation.

Supreme Court Watch

Delligatti v. United States: Supreme Court Grants Review on § 924(c) Crime-of-Violence Issue

During the week ending June 7, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Delligatti v. United States, No. 23-825, a case involving the definition of a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).

Section 924(c) imposes additional penalties when a firearm is used, carried, possessed, brandished, or discharged in connection with certain qualifying crimes. One key question is whether the underlying offense qualifies as a “crime of violence.”

The issue in Delligatti concerned whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to act, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Federal Relief Consideration: § 924(c) cases may deserve review where the predicate offense was treated as a crime of violence even though the offense could be committed by omission, failure to act, reckless conduct, indirect force, or conduct that does not clearly require active use of physical force.

Major Criminal Decisions Still Pending

The Supreme Court also had several important criminal-law and constitutional cases still pending at that time, including United States v. Rahimi, Erlinger v. United States, and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.

Those cases involved Second Amendment firearm restrictions, Sixth Amendment jury-finding requirements under ACCA, and Eighth Amendment punishment issues. The Court was expected to issue remaining opinions before the end of the Term.

Federal Relief Consideration: Pending Supreme Court decisions can affect federal cases involving firearm convictions, mandatory minimums, prior-conviction enhancements, jury findings, and punishment-related constitutional arguments. The practical impact depends on the statute, circuit, record, and procedural posture.

Favorable Federal Appellate Developments

Fourth Circuit: ACCA Sentence Vacated in United States v. Canada

In United States v. Canada, No. 22-4519, the Fourth Circuit vacated an ACCA-enhanced sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Canada was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), commonly known as felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act based on prior convictions, including a South Carolina criminal domestic violence conviction.

The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in treating that South Carolina conviction as an ACCA violent felony. In light of Borden v. United States, an offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness does not qualify as a violent felony under ACCA’s elements clause.

Because one of the three predicate convictions no longer qualified, the Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA and career-offender cases may deserve review where a prior conviction was treated as a violent felony or crime of violence even though the offense can be committed recklessly, negligently, indirectly, or without intentional use of force.

Why ACCA Predicate Review Matters

ACCA can dramatically increase sentencing exposure for a person convicted under § 922(g). If the defendant has three qualifying violent-felony or serious-drug-offense predicates, ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum.

However, not every prior conviction qualifies. Courts often use a categorical approach to determine whether the elements of a prior offense match the federal definition. Later Supreme Court or circuit decisions may change whether certain state offenses still qualify.

Federal Relief Consideration: A case may deserve review where the sentence depended on prior convictions for assault, domestic violence, menacing, robbery, burglary, attempted offenses, reckless offenses, or state-law crimes that may no longer qualify under ACCA or the Sentencing Guidelines.

Why Delligatti Matters for § 924(c) Cases

The Supreme Court’s grant in Delligatti signaled continued review of how courts define crimes of violence under § 924(c). This matters because § 924(c) convictions often add mandatory consecutive sentences.

Predicate-offense review can be complex. Courts may examine whether the offense requires intentional force, whether force may be indirect, whether the offense can be committed by omission, and whether injury or death automatically means the use of physical force.

Federal Relief Consideration: Prisoners with § 924(c) convictions may need review of the indictment, plea agreement, jury instructions, predicate offense, statutory elements, and whether the predicate remains valid after later Supreme Court or circuit decisions.

BOP Relief Statistics Snapshot

The source update identified Bureau of Prisons statistics available at that time, including:

Fair Sentencing and retroactive sentence reductions: 4,142 orders granted
Elderly Offender Home Confinement: 1,246 approved
First Step Act releases: 33,719 granted
Compassionate release and sentence reductions: 4,725 granted
Residential Reentry Center population: 8,392
Home confinement population: 4,932

Federal Relief Consideration: BOP statistics can help show how certain relief mechanisms are being used, but they do not determine whether a specific person qualifies for relief.

Fast Screening Considerations

A case-specific review may be especially important where any of the following issues appear in the record:

§ 924(c) conviction based on a disputed crime-of-violence predicate
Predicate offense involving bodily injury or death but possible commission by omission
Predicate offense that may not require intentional use of physical force
§ 922(g)(1) conviction with ACCA enhancement
ACCA sentence based on South Carolina criminal domestic violence
Prior conviction that can be committed recklessly or negligently
Prior assault, domestic-violence, menacing, robbery, burglary, or attempted offense used as a predicate
Sentence enhanced under ACCA, career-offender, or crime-of-violence guideline provisions
Pending Supreme Court issue involving Rahimi, Erlinger, or Delligatti
BOP, First Step Act, compassionate release, or home confinement questions

What This Means for Federal Prisoners and Families

The June 3–7, 2024 developments show that federal relief may arise from crime-of-violence challenges, ACCA predicate errors, § 924(c) mandatory-consecutive sentences, and later Supreme Court decisions affecting sentencing classifications.

These issues often require reviewing the indictment, plea agreement, judgment, presentence report, prior conviction records, statutory elements, sentencing transcript, guideline calculations, and appellate history.

Why a Written Case Evaluation May Help

A written case evaluation can help identify whether a federal case involves ACCA enhancement errors, § 924(c) predicate issues, crime-of-violence challenges, reckless-offense predicates, firearm sentencing issues, BOP relief questions, compassionate-release factors, or other post-conviction remedies.

Because many federal relief arguments are highly fact-specific and circuit-specific, families should avoid relying on general rumor or broad headlines. A structured review can help determine what issues may actually be available.