Criminal Defense Lawyers

Federal Armed Career Criminal Act Acca Enhancement Defense

You’re sitting in a federal holding cell, and the prosecutor just dropped the news: they’re going for a 15-year mandatory minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Your attorney mentions you’re three prior convictions—one from 2008, a drug charge you thought wouldn’t count, and another that got reduced to a misdameanor. You figured maybe five years for the gun posession charge. Now your facing 15 to life. Your family’s terrified, your job is gone, and your attorneys using terms like “violent felony” and “predicate offenses” that don’t make sense. But here’s what you need to know: those old convictions might not even count anymore. Thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings, their are real defenses you can use—if you act fast and if you’re lawyer knows what there doing.

What Is the Armed Career Criminal Act (And Why It’s Worse Then Regular Gun Charges)

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is basically the federal goverment’s way of saying “we’re gonna lock you up for a really, really long time if you have a gun and a criminal history.” Codified at 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), the statute requires a mandatory minimum sentance of 15 years for anyone convicted of being a felon in posession of a firearm under § 922(g)—but only if they has three or more prior convictions for a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense.”

Let’s break that down, because its critical: a regular felon-in-possession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) usually carry a maximum of 10 years. The sentencing guidelines might recommend something like 37-46 months (thats roughly 3-4 years) for a first-time federal gun offense. But if prosecutors slap on the ACCA enhancement? Boom. You’re looking at a floor of 15 years to life. No judge can go lower then that mandatory minimum, irregardless of how sympathetic you’re situation is or wether you actually used the gun in a crime.

Here’s the thing that really gets people: the ACCA isn’t about what you did this time. Its about what you did years ago—sometimes decades ago. Those three “predicate offenses” could be from when you was 19 years old. They could be from before you had kids, before you got clean, before you turned your life around. And now, in 2025, prosecutors are using them to multiply your sentance by 300%.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that in 2024, federal courts handed down 2,847 ACCA-enhanced sentences. Thats down 18% from 2020, but don’t let that fool you—it’s not because prosecutors are being lenient. Its because defense attorneys have been sucessfully challenging these predicates based off recent Supreme Court cases. The average sentance length for ACCA defendants? 188 months. Thats 15.6 years. And heres another number that should make you mad: 87% of ACCA defendants is Black or Hispanic. This law doesn’t just punish repeat offenders—it targets specific comunities.

So what counts as a “violent felony”? The statute defines it three ways. First, any crime that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” Second, its burglary, arson, extortion, or crimes involving explosives. Third—and this is where it used to get complicated—any crime that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” That third category was called the “residual clause,” and it was a nightmare. Judges couldn’t agree on what crimes qualified, prosecutors abused it, and defendants got sentenced under a vague standard that nobody understood. More on that in a minute, because the Supreme Court eventually said “yeah, this is unconstitutional.”

“Serious drug offense” is slightly more straight forward—its any drug crime punishible by 10 years or more under federal or state law. That includes manufacturing, distributing, or possesing with intent to distribute a controlled substance. But heres the catch: state drug laws vary wildly. What counts as a serious drug offense in Texas might not count in California. What was a felony in 2005 might be a misdameanor now after your state decriminalized it. And if the state statute is broader then the federal definition—meaning you could of been convicted under that statute for conduct that wouldn’t qualify federally—then it might not count as an ACCA predicate at all.

This is where defense strategy gets intresting. The courts use something called the categorical approach to determine weather a prior conviction qualifies. We’ll dive deep into that later, but for now, understand this: just because the prosecutor says you have three qualifying priors doesn’t mean its true. Each conviction has to be analyzed, and if even one of them don’t meet the strict federal definition, the whole ACCA enhancement collapses.

One more thing before we move on: the ACCA also requires that your three predicate offenses was “committed on occasions different from one another.” That language seems simple, but it’s not. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Wooden v. United States that convictions arising from the same criminal episode—even if they involved diffrent victims or occured at slightly diffrent times—might not count as seperate occasions. We’ll talk more about this loophole, because its one of the most under-utilized defenses right now.

The Supreme Court Cases That Changed Everything (These Are You’re Best Weapons)

If your facing an ACCA enhancement in 2025, you need to understand that the legal landscape has shifted dramatically in the last decade. The Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings that have narrowed the scope of ACCA—and if your attorney isn’t using these cases, there either inexperienced or incompetent. Let me be clear: these cases are your best chance of avoiding 15 years in prison.

Johnson v. United States (2015) is the big one. Samuel Johnson was sentenced under ACCA based partly on a Minnesota conviction for unlawful posession of a short-barreled shotgun. The government argued this counted as a “violent felony” under the residual clause—that vague “serious potential risk of physical injury” language I mentioned earlier. Johnson’s lawyers said, “Wait a minute, how is possesing a shotgun inherently violent if he didn’t use it or threaten anyone?” The Supreme Court agreed. In a 8-1 decision, the Court struck down the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. Justice Scalia wrote that the clause “leaves grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime” and produces “more unpredictability and arbitrariness than the Due Process Clause tolerates.”

What does that mean for you? If any of your three prior convictions only qualified under the residual clause, they no longer count. Period. Hundreds of ACCA sentences was vacated after Johnson. But here’s the thing: prosecutors have adapted. They’re now trying to shoe-horn convictions into the other two categories—the “elements” clause (crimes involving force) or the enumerated offenses (burglary, arson, extortion, explosives). So the battle has shifted, but its still winnable.

Borden v. United States (2021) took things even farther. Charles Borden had prior convictions for aggravated assault under Tennessee law, which included reckless conduct—meaning he didn’t necessarily intend to hurt anyone, he just acted recklessly and someone got hurt. The question was weather reckless crimes qualify as “violent felonies” under ACCA’s elements clause. The Supreme Court said no. Justice Kagan explained that the “use of physical force” requires intentional or knowing conduct, not just recklessness. This was huge, because alot of state assault statutes include reckless variations. If your prior assault conviction was based on recklessness rather then intent, it might not count anymore.

Now, here’s where it gets tricky—and where you’re lawyer needs to do they’re homework. After Borden, some prosecutors started charging defendants with completed offenses instead of attempted offenses to avoid the ruling’s impact. But that strategy backfired when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Taylor (2022). Taylor had a prior conviction for attempted Hobbs Act robbery. The government argued it counted as a violent felony. The Court said nope—attempt crimes don’t necessarily involve the use of force, because by definition, the defendant didn’t complete the offense. So attempted robbery? Not a violent felony under ACCA.

Defense attorneys are now using Taylor to challenge all sorts of inchoate offenses—attempts, conspiracies, solicitations. If your prior conviction was for attempting to commit a crime rather than actually commiting it, you might have a strong argument that it doesn’t qualify.

Wooden v. United States (2022) is the one that doesn’t get enough attention, but it should. William Wooden had 10 prior burglary convictions—all from the same night, all at the same storage facility, all within a few hours. The government said, “Look, he has way more then three qualifying priors.” Wooden’s lawyer said, “Hold on. These all happened on the same occasion. They shouldn’t count as seperate predicates.” The Supreme Court agreed. Justice Kagan wrote that the key question is weather the offenses was “separated by some time and intervening events” or whether they was “otherwise distinct.” If your committing multiple crimes in quick succession without a break, they might count as one occasion, not three.

This is a huge loophole that defense attorneys are only starting to exploit. If you’re three prior convictions happened on the same day, at the same location, or as part of the same criminal transaction—even if they involved diffrent victims or slightly diffrent conduct—you might be able to argue they don’t satisfy ACCA’s “occasions different from one another” requirement. Your lawyer should be looking at the arrest dates, the docket numbers, the factual basis for each plea. If there’s any indication these crimes was part of the same episode, that’s your defense.

Here’s what these cases add up to: the Supreme Court has been slowly chipping away at ACCA for a decade. The law hasn’t been repealed, but its been narrowed significantly. Defense success rates on ACCA challenges has climbed to 43% on appeal when challenging predicate definitions. Thats not a guarantee, but its alot better odds then rolling over and accepting 15 years.

But—and this is a big “but”—Congress is trying to reverse all of this. In July 2025, Senator Marsha Blackburn and Representative David Kustoff introduced the Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act (H.R. 4334 / S. 2250). If passed, this bill would replace the “violent felony” and “serious drug offense” categories with a single “serious felony” category and would explicitly overturn the narrowing effects of Johnson, Borden, and other cases. Translation: if your charged now but your trial is scheduled for 2026, you might be in a strategic bind. Do you delay trial hoping the bill dies in committee? Or do you rush to trial under current law, knowing that if you loose and the bill passes, it might get applied retroactively on appeal? This is the kind of high-stakes timing decision that requires an experienced ACCA attorney.

The Categorical Approach: You’re Secret Weapon Explained in Plain English

Okay, this is were things get technical, but bear with me because understanding the categorical approach is the difference between 5 years and 15 years. Most defense attorneys dont fully grasp this—and thats malpractice. If your lawyer isn’t talking about the categorical approach within the first two meetings, find a new lawyer.

Heres the basic idea: when a court tries to figure out weather your prior state conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate, it doesn’t look at what you actually did. Instead, it looks at what you could have been convicted of under the state statute. This is called the categorical approach, and its based on a Supreme Court case called Taylor v. United States (1990)—not to be confused with the 2022 Taylor case I mentioned earlier.

Let me give you an example. Say you was convicted of “robbery” under your state’s penal code. The prosecutor wants to use that as a violent felony predicate. But here’s the question: what does “robbery” mean under state law? In most states, robbery is taking property from another person by force or threat of force. That matches the federal definition, so it probably counts.

But what if your states robbery statute is broader? What if it includes taking property by “intimidation” or “fear”—and your states courts have held that just wearing a scary mask can satisfy the intimidation element, even if you never touched anyone or threatened them? In that case, you could of been convicted of robbery under state law for conduct that wouldn’t meet the federal definition of a violent felony. And if the statute is broader then the federal definition, the conviction doesn’t count.

This is why the categorical approach is so powerful. It doesn’t matter if you actually used force. What matters is weather the state statute, as written, necessarily requires the elements of a federal violent felony. If the statute is over-inclusive—if it criminalizes conduct that wouldn’t qualify under ACCA—then the whole conviction is out.

Now, sometimes state statutes have multiple alternative elements. For example, a state burglary law might say, “A person commits burglary if they unlawfully enter (1) a dwelling, (2) a building, or (3) a vehicle with intent to commit a crime.” Under federal law, only unlawful entry into a “building or structure” counts as ACCA-qualifying burglary—vehicles don’t count. So if the state statute includes vehicles as an alternative, the court can’t automatically assume your conviction was for entering a building. This is where the modified categorical approach comes in.

Under the modified categorical approach, the court is allowed to look at a very limited set of documents to figure out which alternative element you was convicted under. These are called Shepard documents, after the Supreme Court case Shepard v. United States (2005). The list is short: the charging document (indictment or information), the plea agreement, the plea colloquy transcript, jury instructions, and the verdict form. Thats it. The court can’t look at police reports, victim statements, or pre-sentence investigation reports. If the Shepard documents don’t clearly show which element you was convicted under, the government loses. You win by default.

This is where defense strategy gets really intresting. If your prior conviction is 10 or 15 years old, there’s a decent chance some of the Shepard documents are missing. Court files get lost, clerks retire, records get destroyed. If the certified copy of your conviction doesn’t include a clear plea agreement or jury instructions specifying which element you pled to, the government can’t prove the conviction qualifies. And if they can’t prove it, it doesn’t count.

So here’s what you’re attorney should be doing right now:

1. Obtain certified copies of ALL prior conviction records. Not summaries. Not rap sheets. Full certified copies of the charging documents, plea agreements, judgments, and sentancing transcripts. This can take 6-12 weeks, so don’t wait.

2. Analyze each state statute as it existed at the time of conviction. State laws change. What was a felony in 2005 might be a misdameanor now. What was broadly defined back then might have been narrowed by subsequent court decisions. Your attorney needs to research the statute as it was written when you was convicted, and how state courts interpreted it at that time.

3. Identify which convictions are most vulnerable. Not all predicates are created equal. Maybe one of your priors is a drug offense under a state statute that includes substances not covered by federal schedules. Maybe another is an assault conviction that could have been based on reckless conduct under Borden. Your attorney should rank your predicates from weakest to strongest and focus the challenge on the weakest link.

4. Consider hiring an expert witness. If the categorical analysis is complex—say, involving state case law that interprets the statute in unexpected ways—it might be worth hiring a criminal law professor or former state prosecutor as an expert witness. They can testify about how the statute was actually applied in practice, which can persuade the judge that the statute is broader then it looks on paper. This costs $5,000-$15,000, but weigh that against 10 extra years in prison.

Here’s the bottom line: the categorical approach is your best weapon because it shift’s the burden. The government has to prove—beyond a reasonable doubt—that each of your prior convictions necessarily involved the elements of a federal violent felony or serious drug offense. If they can’t prove it, you walk (well, you still face the underlying 922(g) charge, but without the 15-year mandatory minimum). And in practice, the government screws this up all the time. They assume convictions qualify without doing the hard work of analyzing state statutes. Don’t let them get away with it.

What This Really Means for You’re Family and You’re Life

Look, lets talk about what 15 years actually means because I dont think people—prosecutors, judges, even some defense attorneys—really grasp the human cost here. Your not just loosing time, your loosing everything.

If you’re 35 years old right now and you get hit with the ACCA mandatory minimum, you’ll be 50 when you get out. Fifty. Your kids—if you got kids—will be adults. They wont remember you. They’ll grow up without a father (or mother), and no amount of letters or phone calls or prison visits is gonna change that.

I’ve seen it happen, over and over. The five-year-old who used to cry when daddy left for work? By the time you get out, they’ll be 20 and they won’t even know you. They’ll have graduations, first dates, first jobs, weddings—all without you. And you’ll miss it all, sitting in a federal prison because of crimes you committed when you was 19.

You’re spouse—if your married—probably wont wait 15 years. I’m not saying that to be cruel, I’m saying it because its the reality. The divorce rate for incarcerated people is over 80%. Your partner will be left to raise the kids alone, pay the bills alone, deal with the stigma alone. And yeah, theres gonna be stigma. Your kids will get bullied at school. “Your dads a criminal.” “Your mom’s in prison.” They’ll lie and say you moved away or died because its easier then explaining.

Financial devastation? Your family’s gonna loose the house if you were the primary breadwinner. They’ll loose health insurance. They might end up on welfare or moving in with relatives. The ripple effects are massive.

And if your parents are elderly, theres a very real chance they’ll die while your incarcerated. You wont be there. You wont get to say goodbye. You might—might—get compassionate release to attend the funeral in shackles with a guard standing next to you while you cry. But probably not. Most requests get denied.

Oh, and if your not a U.S. citizen? ACCA conviction triggers mandatory deportation. No judge has discretion to waive it. You’ll serve your 15 years in federal prison, and then—assuming you survive that—you’ll be shipped to a country you might not have lived in since you was a kid. You’ll be seperated from you’re family permanently. You wont be allowed to return. Ever.

Here’s what really makes me angry about this whole system: 87% of ACCA defendants are Black or Hispanic. This isn’t random. Federal task forces—ATF, FBI, DEA—target specific neighborhoods, specific demographics. They set up stings in poor communities where people are more likely to have prior convictions from over-policing in the first place. So your getting punished twice: once for the initial convictions (which might have been the result of racial profiling or harsh sentancing laws that have since been reformed), and again now with the ACCA enhancement. Its a feedback loop, and its by design.

The prosecutor has all the power here, too. They decide weather to charge federally or leave it to state court. They decide weather to file the ACCA enhancement or not. And they use that power to force plea deals. DOJ statistics show that 97% of federal defendants plead guilty—but ACCA defendants plead at 98.3%. That extra 1.3% represents thousands of people who took bad deals because they was terrified of the mandatory minimum. The prosecutor will sit across from you and say, “Plead guilty to the 922(g) charge without the ACCA enhancement, and I’ll recommend 5 years. Go to trial and lose, you’re looking at 15 to life.” Thats not justice, thats coercion.

But heres the thing—and this is why I’m writing this article—you can fight this. You’re not helpless. Yeah, the system is rigged, yeah the odds are stacked against you, but 31% of ACCA challenges succeed at the district court level. Forty-three percent succeed on appeal when challenging predicate definitions. Those aren’t terrible odds! If your predicates are questionable—if one of them was a reckless assault under Borden, or if they all happened on the same occasion under Wooden, or if the state statute is broader then the federal definition—you have a real shot.

And even if you loose at trial, filing a strong ACCA challenge creates leverage in plea negotiations. If the prosecutor knows your lawyer is prepared to fight and has a decent argument, they might offer a better deal just to avoid the hassle. Prosecutors don’t like uncertainty. They dont like the possibility of losing on appeal and having to retry the case three years later. Use that.

I’m not gonna lie to you and say this is easy. Its not. Federal criminal defense is expensive—good ACCA attorneys charge $25,000-$50,000 or more, and thats before expert witnesses, investigators, and appeal costs. If you can’t afford that, you’ll get a federal public defender, and some of them are excellent—but they’re also overwhelmed with cases. You need to be your own advocate. You need to ask your lawyer the hard questions: “Have you defended ACCA cases before? What was the outcome? Which of my predicates are you planning to challenge? Are you using the categorical approach? Have you requested certified conviction records yet?” If they cant answer those questions, you need a different lawyer.

Time is you’re enemy here. The longer you wait, the harder it gets. Witnesses dissapear. Documents get lost. Memories fade. If your serious about fighting the ACCA enhancement, you need to act now. Today. Not next week, not after you “think about it.” Now.

You’re Step-by-Step Action Plan (What to Do Right This Minute)

Alright, enough theory. Lets talk about what you actually need to do, step by step, to give yourself the best possible chance of avoiding the ACCA enhancement. This is a timeline based on the typical federal criminal case, but every case is different, so adjust as needed based off your specific situation.

Week 1: Emergency Actions (Do These Immediately)

1. Hire an ACCA-experienced attorney. Not just any federal criminal defense lawyer—someone who has actually defended ACCA cases before. Ask them directly: “How many ACCA cases have you handled? What was the outcome?” If they hesitate or say they “handle all federal cases,” keep looking. You need a specialist. If your indigent, request a federal public defender, but make sure they has ACCA experience. Don’t be afraid to ask for a diffrent attorney if yours seems inexperienced.

2. Obtain certified copies of ALL prior convictions. This is critical. Your attorney should immediately request certified copies of the charging documents, plea agreements, sentancing transcripts, and judgments for each of your three (or more) prior convictions. This takes time—sometimes 6-12 weeks, depending on the jurisdiction. Some states have terrible record-keeping, some courts have moved to new buildings and lost old files. Start this process NOW. If your prior convictions are from multiple states, you’ll need to contact each states court system seperately.

3. Do NOT talk to prosecutors or investigators without your attorney present. I cant stress this enough: shut up. The police and prosecutors will try to interview you. They’ll say things like, “We just want to hear your side of the story,” or “This will help you in the long run.” Its a trap. Anything you say will be used against you, and you cant un-say it later. Exercise your right to remain silent and demand your lawyer be present for any questioning.

4. Preserve evidence that might help you’re case. If any of your prior convictions have mitigating circumstances—for example, if one was reduced from a felony to a misdameanor, or if the victim later recanted, or if you completed a diversion program—gather any documentation you can find. Old court papers, certificates of completion for rehab programs, letters from probation officers—anything that might show the conviction shouldn’t count or that you’ve turned your life around.

Week 2-4: Attorney Analysis Phase

5. Your attorney should be analyzing your predicates using the categorical approach. By now, your lawyer should have started researching the state statutes for each prior conviction. They should be pulling up the version of the statute as it existed when you was convicted, reading state appellate decisions interpreting that statute, and comparing the state definition to the federal ACCA definition. If there not doing this, somethings wrong.

6. Identify the most vulnerable conviction. Not all predicates are equally strong. Maybe one of your priors is a drug offense under a statute that criminalized substances not covered by federal law. Maybe another is an assault that could have been reckless under Borden. Your attorney should rank your predicates from weakest to strongest and focus the challenge on the weakest one. Remember: you only need to knock out ONE predicate to defeat the ACCA enhancement. If you’ve got three priors and you succesfully argue that one doesn’t qualify, you’re down to two, and ACCA doesn’t apply.

7. Research circuit-specific case law. The federal circuit your case is in matters alot. The Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, Vermont) has been very defendant-friendly on ACCA issues post-Johnson. The Ninth Circuit (California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, etc.) has been receptive to challenges on drug offense predicates. The Fourth Circuit (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia) is tougher, and the Eastern District of Virginia in particular is known as the “rocket docket”—they rush cases to trial, which is bad news for ACCA defendants who need time to build a defense. Your attorney needs to know the case law in your specific circuit and tailor the arguments accordingly.

Week 6-12: Plea Negotiations and Strategic Decisions

8. Evaluate any plea offers carefully. Around this time, the prosecutor will probably make a plea offer. It might be something like, “Plead guilty to 922(g) without the ACCA enhancement, and we’ll recommend 60 months.” Before you accept, ask your lawyer: “How strong is the governments case on my predicates? What are my chances of winning if we challenge the ACCA enhancement?” If your predicates are questionable, don’t take the first offer. Counteroffer. Negotiate. The prosecutor doesn’t want the hassle of a full ACCA hearing either—they might improve the offer if they think your serious about fighting.

9. Read the prosecutors confidence level. If the prosecutor is offering to drop the ACCA enhancement in a plea deal, thats a sign they’re not confident about they’re predicates. Why would they give up a 15-year mandatory minimum if they thought they could win? On the other hand, if there playing hardball and refusing to negotiate, it could mean they think there predicates are solid—or it could mean there bluffing. This is where having an experienced attorney who knows the local prosecutors matters.

10. Consider strategic delay vs. rushing to trial. This is a tough call in 2025 because of the pending Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act (H.R. 4334 / S. 2250). If that bill passes, it would expand ACCA’s reach by reversing Johnson, Borden, and other cases. So if your predicates are questionable under current law but would clearly qualify under the new bill, you might want to rush to trial before the bill becomes law. On the other hand, if your predicates are weak even under the proposed new law, delaying might work in your favor—the bill could die in committee, or it might not pass at all. Talk to your attorney about the legislative calendar and whether strategic timing matters in your case.

Week 16-24: Pre-Trial Motions and Expert Witnesses

11. File a motion to dismiss the ACCA enhancement. This is a critical step that to many defense attorneys skip. Before trial, your lawyer should file a motion arguing that one or more of your prior convictions dont qualify as ACCA predicates under the categorical approach. This forces the prosecutor to preview there argument and gives the judge a chance to rule on the issue before trial. Even if you loose the motion, you’ve preserved the issue for appeal.

12. Hire an expert witness if needed. If your case involves complex state law issues—for example, if state appellate courts have interpreted the statute in ways that make it broader then it appears, or if theres ambiguity about weather the statute includes reckless conduct—it might be worth hiring an expert. A criminal law professor or former state prosecutor who’s familiar with how that states courts apply the statute can testify about the statutory interpretation. This costs $5,000-$15,000, but its a worthwhile investment. Think of it this way: $10,000 for an expert vs. 10 extra years in prison? Easy math.

13. Consider bench trial vs. jury trial. For the underlying 922(g) charge, a jury trial might make sense—juries can be sympathetic, and theres always a chance of nullification. But for the ACCA predicate analysis? Thats a pure legal question that the judge decides, not the jury. In some cases, it might make sense to request a bench trial (judge decides everything) if you think the judge is particularly knowledgable about ACCA law and might be receptive to you’re arguments. This is a strategic call that depends on the specific judge and the facts of your case.

Post-Conviction: If You Loose at Trial

14. File notice of appeal within 14 days. This is a hard deadline. If you’re convicted and sentenced with the ACCA enhancement, you have exactly 14 days from the date of judgment to file a notice of appeal. Miss that deadline and your screwed—you’ll have to go through a much harder process to get relief. Your attorney should file the notice of appeal immediately, even if you havent finished writing the appellate brief yet. You can flesh out the arguments later.

15. Appeal both the conviction and the ACCA enhancement. On appeal, you have two shots: challenging the underlying 922(g) conviction (was the gun really yours? was the search legal? etc.) and challenging the ACCA predicates (did the district court correctly apply the categorical approach?). The appellate court reviews legal questions de novo, meaning they dont defer to the trial judge. This is actually good for you—you get a fresh look at the predicate analysis from a panel of three appellate judges.

16. Monitor new Supreme Court cases. The Supreme Court hears ACCA cases fairly regularly, and new rulings can create oportunities for post-conviction relief. If the Court issues a new decision after your conviction that would change the analysis of your predicates, you might be able to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (a collateral attack on your sentance) arguing that your conviction is no longer valid under the new law. This is how hundreds of people got out after Johnson struck down the residual clause.

During Incarceration: Long-Term Strategies

17. File a § 2255 motion if new case law emerges. Even if your appeal fails, you can file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 arguing that your sentance is unconstitutional or that your attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. For example, if your lawyer never raised the categorical approach argument, that could be grounds for a § 2255 motion. The deadline for filing is typically one year from when your conviction becomes final, but there are exceptions if new case law emerges.

18. Apply for compassionate release. The First Step Act (2018) expanded compassionate release provisions. If you can show “extraordinary and compelling reasons”—such as serious illness, family circumstances, or the fact that your sentence is disproportionately long compared to current law—you might be eligable for early release. The BOP has to review your request first, and if they deny it (they almost always do), you can petition the court directly after 30 days.

19. Monitor the 2025 ACCA Restoration Act. If Congress passes H.R. 4334 / S. 2250, it will expand ACCA’s reach moving forward—but it might also create new legal challenges. For example, if the bill is written broadly and applied retroactively, that could violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Stay informed about legislative developments and talk to your lawyer about weather any new law creates new oportunities for relief.

Circuit-Specific Strategies

If your in the Second Circuit (SDNY, EDNY, District of Connecticut, District of Vermont), your in one of the most defense-friendly circuits for ACCA challenges. Judges in the Second Circuit have been skeptical of ACCA enhancements since Johnson and have issued alot of favorable rulings on categorical approach issues. Your attorney should cite Second Circuit cases heavily and consider requesting a bench conference to discuss predicate issues before trial.

If your in the Fourth Circuit, particularly the Eastern District of Virginia, your facing an uphill battle. The EDVA is the “rocket docket”—cases move fast, judges deny continuances, and you wont have much time to prepare. If your charged there, you need to be extra agressive about requesting certified records early and filing pre-trial motions. Consider asking for a venue change if you have ties to another jurisdiction, because getting out of EDVA can buy you valuable time.

If your in the Ninth Circuit, focus on drug offense predicates. The Ninth Circuit has been more willing then other circuits to find that state drug statutes are over-inclusive compared to federal schedules. If any of your predicates involve drug offenses, theres a good chance you can challenge them succesfully in the Ninth Circuit.

Final Thoughts: You Can Fight This, But You Need to Act Now

Heres the bottom line: the Armed Career Criminal Act is one of the harshest sentancing laws in the federal system, but its not invincible. Thanks to Johnson, Borden, Wooden, and Taylor, the Supreme Court has been slowly narrowing ACCA’s reach for a decade. If your facing an ACCA enhancement in 2025, you have real defenses—but only if you act fast and only if your attorney knows what there doing.

Dont accept the prosecutors first plea offer without having your predicates analyzed. Dont assume that just because you was convicted of “robbery” or “assault” or “drug distribution” 15 years ago, it automatically counts as an ACCA predicate. State statutes vary wildly, and alot of them are broader then the federal definitions. The categorical approach is your secret weapon, and if your lawyer isn’t using it, your getting screwed.

Time matters. The 2025 Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act is pending in Congress, and if it passes, it will make ACCA challenges harder. You might have a window of oportunity right now that wont exist in six months or a year. Use it.

And if your already incarcerated under an ACCA sentance that you think is wrong? Its not to late. Monitor new Supreme Court cases, file a § 2255 motion if new law emerges, apply for compassionate release. The system wants you to give up and dissapear. Dont do it. Keep fighting.

This isn’t just about you, its about your family, your kids, your future. Fifteen years is a long time, but if you can knock out even one of those predicates, you might be looking at five years instead. Thats 10 years you get back. Ten years you can spend with your kids, rebuilding your life, actually having a future. Its worth fighting for.