U.S. v. Nigro

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. McClendon

    Case No. 15-cr-20156 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    If such documents are unavailable or do not establish which alternative was the basis of the conviction, the Court would not be able to say whether the defendant "necessarily admitted" an element that falls within the force clause, and that conviction would not qualify as a predicate offense. See, e.g., United States v. Nigro, 650 F. Supp. 2d 372, 376 (E.D. Pa. 2009).

  2. United States v. Mass

    Case No. 01-50035-01 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2017)

    See United States v. Del Carmen Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2012); see also Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2285 (explaining that the modified categorical approach is "a mechanism" to apply "the categorical approach's basic method" where the offense statute is divisible). If such documents are unavailable or do not establish which alternative was the basis of the conviction, the Court would not be able to say whether the defendant "necessarily admitted" an offense that falls within (or is narrower than) the force clause, and that conviction would not qualify as a predicate offense. See, e.g., United States v. Nigro, 650 F. Supp. 2d 372, 376 (E.D. Pa. 2009). If the "threshold inquiry" set forth in Mathis shows that the statute is not divisible, then the "modified approach . . . has no role to play," Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2285, and the Court applies the formal categorical approach.