Commerce Clause challenge; United States v Lopez; Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA); 18 USC § 924(e); Different-occasions requirement; Erlinger v United States; FRE 403; Offer to stipulate; Old Chief v United States

The court held that defendant-Mixon’s Commerce Clause challenge was foreclosed by circuit precedent. It also held, in an issue of first impression, that the district court did not abuse its discretion under FRE 403 by admitting evidence about his 2000 robbery despite his offer to stipulate that it occurred on a different occasion from his other ACCA predicate offenses. Defendant carjacked a woman at gunpoint after her late-night shift, fled from Tennessee into Virginia, and was later arrested with the stolen firearm. A jury convicted him of carjacking and several firearm offenses. In a bifurcated second phase, the jury considered whether he had at least three qualifying prior convictions committed on different occasions for purposes of ACCA’s sentencing enhancement. On appeal, the court first rejected his as-applied Commerce Clause challenge, explaining that “our post-Lopez precedents have long foreclosed Mixon’s position.” The firearm had previously moved in interstate commerce, as had the carjacked vehicle, and defendant himself transported both across state lines while fleeing police. The court next addressed whether the government could present evidence about his prior robbery rather than accept his proposed stipulation that it occurred on a different occasion from his other prior offenses. It expressly identified this as “an issue of first impression,” noting that after Erlinger, defendants are “entitled to have a jury resolve ACCA’s occasions inquiry unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court declined to extend Old Chief’s rule requiring acceptance of a felon-status stipulation to ACCA’s different-occasions inquiry. Unlike felon status, the occasions inquiry depends on circumstances such as timing, proximity, and the relationship among offenses, and defendant’s proposed stipulation would have resolved only part of that inquiry. The court also found that the district court’s bifurcation reduced the danger that evidence of the earlier robbery would improperly affect the jury’s consideration of the current offenses. Concluding that the evidence retained legitimate probative value and did not create unfair prejudice substantially outweighing that value, the court determined that the district court “did not abuse its wide discretion under Rule 403 in allowing the government to prove the ACCA enhancement with evidence of its choosing.” Affirmed.