United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-3247
___________________________
Timothy Daniels
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3249
___________________________
Archie Bob Jenkins, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3251
___________________________
Dirk Allen Horne
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3252
___________________________
James J. Insley
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3253
___________________________
Scott Kelly McDaniel
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant
___________________________
-2-
No. 17-3260
___________________________
Vincent Cordell Woodard
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3281
___________________________
Ryan Lamar Miles
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3309
___________________________
Michael Kuntz
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee
v.
-3-
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3312
___________________________
Lonnie Lee Rhodes
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellee
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellant
___________________________
No. 18-2913
___________________________
Ryndale Buckhanan
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
-4-
Submitted: May 13, 2020
Filed: May 27, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, the government appeals the district courts’ grants
of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to 10 defendants who were sentenced under the
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). First, we note that a suggestion of the death
of appellee Ryan Miles has been filed by the United States and confirmed by Miles’s
counsel. Accordingly, appeal number 17-3281 is dismissed as moot.
In October 2017 and August 2018, the district courts reduced appellees’
sentences, based on the law of this court at that time, which held that Arkansas
residential burglary did not qualify as generic burglary--and thus was not a predicate
violent felony under the ACCA--because the statute covered burglary of vehicles.
See United States v. Sims, 854 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2017). Following remand by the
Supreme Court, see United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399, 407-08 (2018), this court
held that Arkansas residential burglary qualifies as a violent felony for the purposes
of the ACCA, because its coverage is limited to burglaries of vehicles in which
someone was living, and therefore presented a serious risk of violence. See United
States v. Sims, 933 F.3d 1009, 1+014 (8th Cir. 2019).
Upon careful review, we conclude that appellees qualified as Armed Career
Criminals, and thus their original sentences were correct. See Sims, 933 F.3d at
1014-15 (affirming ACCA-enhanced sentence based on Arkansas residential burglary
conviction); Diaz v. United States, 863 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2017) (grant of § 2255
-5-
motion and whether prior conviction constitutes a violent felony for the purposes of
the ACCA are reviewed de novo). Appellees now argue that the Arkansas residential
burglary statute is too broad to qualify as a violent felony because “structures”
includes fenced areas and carports. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-201(a)(1) (A person
commits residential burglary if he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a residential
occupiable structure of another person with the purpose of committing in the
residential occupiable structure any offense punishable by imprisonment); Ark. Code
Ann. § 5-39-101(8)(A) (“residential occupiable structure” means a vehicle, building,
or other structure in which any person lives or that is customarily used for overnight
accommodation of a person whether or not a person is actually present). We
conclude the argument fails because the statute is limited to structures used for
overnight accommodation, and therefore focuses on circumstances where burglary
is likely to present a serious risk of violence. See Stitt, 139 S. Ct. at 407 (statutes fell
within generic burglary when they restricted coverage to vehicles and structures
customarily used or adapted for overnight accommodation, and therefore focused on
circumstances where burglary is likely to present a serious risk of violence; burglary
is inherently dangerous because it creates possibility of violent confrontation between
offender and occupant, caretaker, or someone who comes to investigate); Sims, 933
F.3d at 1015 (Stitt’s focus on the potential for violent confrontation brings all
residences within the ambit of generic burglary); see also Julian v. State, 298 Ark.
302, 304 (Ark. 1989) (burglary involves entering a place where people, as opposed
to mere property, are likely to be). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
______________________________
-6-