Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1844
Appellant,
v.
WAYNE CARTER,
Defendant, Appellee.
Before
clear that the original conviction was proper. For the following
reasons, we again remand the case, this time for reentry of the
judgment of conviction and the sentence, albeit with leave for the
sentence.
I.
- 2 -
he had inherited, kept, pawned, and redeemed after the 1997 assault
that the Maine assault statute could be violated with a mens rea
district court denied these motions in July 2011 and March 2012,
States v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12, 21 (1st Cir. 2011), the district
his right to appeal the denial of his motions to dismiss and his
sentence.
- 3 -
While Carter's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court
the amount of force required for common law battery and not the
States, 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010). Castleman, 134 S. Ct. at 1413.
The mens rea required for a "use" of physical force was not at
(1st Cir. 2013), which had followed Booker on this point, see id.
at 45, and United States v. Voisine, 495 F. App'x 101 (1st Cir.
- 4 -
The panel that heard Carter's appeal paid attention to
for thinking that the Booker panel might well change its collective
that the parties did not dispute that the Maine assault statute
[have] show[n] that Carter's conviction was under one of the other
- 5 -
original motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory grounds"
Voisine, 778 F.3d 176, 186 (1st Cir. 2015) ("In United States v.
upon Booker, but it explicitly did 'not decide' the question before
- 6 -
Supreme Court to have vacated Armstrong in order to pull this
circuit into line with the other circuits with respect to whether
Carter that the Booker panel might "change its collective mind in
After finding that the Shepard documents did not establish the
See Voisine, 778 F.3d at 177. The Supreme Court affirmed. See
that has sent this case around the barn and back. As the district
- 7 -
That leaves two related loose ends: Carter's appeal
case.3
II.
The panel hearing that appeal nevertheless did not reach the
the conviction. See Carter, 752 F.3d at 21. When the district
- 8 -
The fact that Carter has completed his prison sentence
Molak, 276 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 2002). In simple terms, if the
much less prison time than the district court thought was the case,
his supervised release only because, while out on bail for this
That may be so, but the fact remains that he still has a real stake
United States v. DeLeon, 444 F.3d 41, 55 (1st Cir. 2006) (finding
- 9 -
Carter's brief) "the 'Sporting Purposes or Collection' exception
merits. And this docket does not contain the full record germane
III.
Carter argues that the only appropriate order is one that would
the district court, after the remand, correctly predicted how this
- 10 -
court and the Supreme Court would rule in Voisine. Had the
district court done so, Carter argues, he may have been able to
been had the previous panel of this court correctly predicted how
this court and the Supreme Court would rule in Voisine. Had that
panel done so, it never would have vacated the conviction and
at this point, Carter has not demonstrated any error in either his
Carter has not made any legal argument that the proceedings thus
Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) ("It is not enough merely
- 11 -
the court to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the
get the parties back to where they would have been but for the
but for the detour we have described above. The appeal will likely
IV.
further, that (1) the district court shall reenter the April 23,
- 12 -
the term of imprisonment and that only the supervised release term
remains to be served; (2) the district court shall ensure that the
shall have fourteen days from the date the district court reenters
- 13 -