UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THILO BROWN
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Duncan, Aug. 21, 2017,
AEDPA– The Supreme Court’s holding that the residual clause of the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague does not mean that the residual clause of the US Sentencing Guidelines is similarly unconstitutional

(Dissent- Gregory- Would find the residual clause of the USSG to be unconstitutionally vague)

Facts:
In 2003, Brown pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. At sentencing, Brown was sentenced as a career offender under the US Sentencing Guidelines (USSG).
This sentencing relied on Brown’s prior felony CDS conviction as well as a prior conviction for resisting arrest. The sentencing court held that resisting arrest qualified as a crime of violence under the USSG “residual clause.”
Brown did not appeal the case.
In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar “residual clause” in the ACCA was unconstitutional.
Brown then challenged his own conviction, arguing that if the ACCA’s residual clause was unconstitutional then the USSG residual clause must also be illegal.

Held:
The Fourth Circuit disagreed, but not based on Brown’s logic. Because this was a post-conviction under the AEDPA, the Fourth Circuit decided not to interpret the Supreme Court’s opinion. Brown’s post-conviction was dismissed.