CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ARTHUR CHARLES SMITH, aka Marvon Andersen,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-6720
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:13-cr-00005-3—Thomas A. Varlan, District Judge.
Argued: November 30, 2017
Decided and Filed: February 7, 2018
Before: NORRIS, ROGERS, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Arthur Smith was sentenced as a career offender based in part on his prior North Carolina state conviction for common-law robbery. In this appeal, he contends that North Carolina common-law robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence” within the meaning of § 4B1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. This is the second time Smith has asked us to resolve this question. In 2014, another panel of this court heard Smith’s case and concluded that North Carolina common-law robbery indeed qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines’ so-called residual clause. The Supreme Court vacated that decision, however, after its decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which cast the constitutionality of the Guidelines’ residual clause into doubt. Since then, another Supreme Court decision, Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), has clarified that the Guidelines’ residual clause remains valid even after Johnson. We therefore reaffirm our prior conclusion that North Carolina common-law robbery is a crime of violence within the meaning of the Guidelines’ residual clause. Accordingly, Smith was properly classified as a career offender.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHAKA CASTRO and JUAN OLAYA,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 17-1590
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
2:15-cr-20200—Laurie J. Michelson, District Judge.
Argued: February 1, 2018
Decided and Filed: February 7, 2018
Before: SUTTON, KETHLEDGE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. In December 2014, a string of home invasions struck Dallas, Texas. Law enforcement focused their investigation on Chaka Castro and Juan Fernando Olaya. Texas courts issued warrants to search their phones. Consistent with the warrants, state officers conducted detailed searches of Castro’s phones and a cursory search of Olaya’s phone, and the FBI conducted a full search of Olaya’s phone. Each search turned up potentially incriminating evidence that the individuals had violated federal racketeering laws. The district court granted each defendant’s motion to suppress. Because each search complied with the Fourth Amendment, we reverse.