United States v. Rico Brown ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 35
    PUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-4253
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    RICO LORODGE BROWN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
    Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00223-KDB-DCK-1)
    Argued: March 10, 2023                                             Decided: May 3, 2023
    Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Senior Judge
    Floyd joined. Judge Heytens wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.
    ARGUED: Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH
    CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anthony Joseph Enright,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee. ON BRIEF: John G. Baker, Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL
    DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253       Doc: 46        Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 35
    NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
    After pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1), Rico Brown was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, an enhanced
    penalty that represents the mandatory minimum sentence required for such a violation
    when the provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1),
    are satisfied. ACCA provides that when a defendant violates § 922(g) and has “three
    previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense . . . committed on
    occasions different from one another,” he shall be given the enhanced sentence. Id.
    Brown’s indictment did not allege the facts supporting the ACCA enhancement; instead,
    the district court found them as part of the sentencing procedure.
    Even though we held in United States v. Thompson that district courts may,
    consistent with the Constitution, use information “found in conclusive judicial records” to
    determine at sentencing that the defendant has three qualifying convictions for offenses
    committed on different occasions, thus triggering the ACCA enhancement, 
    421 F.3d 278
    ,
    285–86 (4th Cir. 2005), Brown contends that in light of the Supreme Court’s intervening
    decisions in Descamps v. United States, 
    570 U.S. 254
     (2013), Mathis v. United States, 
    579 U.S. 500
     (2016), and Wooden v. United States, 
    142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022)
    , Thompson is no
    longer good law. He maintains that, in light of these Supreme Court cases and the Fifth
    and Sixth Amendments, ACCA’s requirement that the defendant have committed the prior
    offenses on different occasions must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury or
    admitted by the defendant in his guilty plea because that fact increases the penalty for his
    crime.
    2
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46        Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 35
    We conclude, however, that the ACCA enhancement remains a matter for
    sentencing. Under Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
     (1998), the facts that
    support a recidivism enhancement are resolved by the district court during sentencing, and
    ACCA provides just such a recidivism enhancement, as we recognized in Thompson.
    Despite Brown’s arguments to the contrary, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s
    decisions in Descamps, Mathis, and Wooden have not narrowed or overruled Almendarez-
    Torres. And if they have done so by implication, the Supreme Court must say so, not a
    court of appeals. Accordingly, we affirm.
    I
    On September 23, 2019, in Union County, North Carolina, Rico Brown sold a
    handgun to an undercover law enforcement officer.        He was thereafter indicted for
    possession of a firearm while knowing that he had been convicted of a felony, in violation
    of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1). At the time, the maximum sentence for that crime was 10 years’
    imprisonment, unless ACCA was applicable. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (a)(2) (2018). Under
    ACCA, when a defendant violates § 922(g) and has “three previous convictions . . . for a
    violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from
    one another,” the mandatory minimum sentence is 15 years’ imprisonment and the
    maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Id. § 924(e)(1). In this case, Brown’s indictment
    did not allege whether he was subject to ACCA, leaving the applicability of the
    enhancement to be resolved at sentencing.
    3
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46        Filed: 05/03/2023       Pg: 4 of 35
    In January 2021, Brown pled guilty to the § 922(g)(1) offense. But before pleading
    guilty, he was advised that “the statutory punishment for a [§] 922(g) [offense] is a
    maximum term of imprisonment of ten years,” except that “if 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1) [i.e.,
    ACCA] applies, and the defendant has three previous convictions by any court for a violent
    felony or a serious drug offense, the minimum term of imprisonment is 15 years, and the
    maximum term is life.” Brown confirmed that he understood this, and the district court
    then found his guilty plea to be knowing and voluntary.
    The presentence report prepared for sentencing concluded that Brown was indeed
    subject to ACCA’s enhanced penalties based on three prior North Carolina convictions:
    (1) a 2008 conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, committed on July 14, 2007;
    (2) a second 2008 conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, committed on
    September 24, 2007; and (3) a 2013 conviction for common law robbery, committed on
    October 8, 2012.     The proceedings following the two 2007 robbery charges were
    consolidated, and Brown was convicted of both robberies and sentenced to 46 to 65
    months’ imprisonment on May 13, 2008.
    At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the presentence report and
    concluded that each of Brown’s North Carolina robbery convictions qualified as a
    conviction for a violent felony under ACCA and that, based on the information from state
    court records included in the presentence report, the three robberies were committed on
    different occasions. The court therefore sentenced Brown under ACCA to the mandatory
    minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.
    4
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253       Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 5 of 35
    Brown did not object to the accuracy of any information included in the presentence
    report pertaining to his criminal history, but he did object to the report’s conclusion that he
    was subject to ACCA’s enhanced penalties, arguing that “sentencing him under the ACCA
    would violate his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490 (2000) and Alleyne v. United States, [
    570 U.S. 99
    ] (2013).” He reasoned
    that even if the fact of his convictions could constitutionally be found by the court at
    sentencing under the holding of Almendarez-Torres, the fact that the underlying offenses
    had been committed on different occasions should have been charged in his indictment and
    found by the jury or admitted by him in his guilty plea. Brown acknowledged that this
    court had rejected his precise argument in Thompson, but he argued that the Supreme
    Court’s intervening decisions in Descamps and Mathis showed that the Court had adopted
    a narrower understanding of Almendarez-Torres and that “[i]n light of Descamps and
    Mathis, [the district court] should conclude that Thompson [was] no longer controlling
    precedent.”
    At his sentencing hearing on May 13, 2021, Brown reiterated the same argument
    while again acknowledging to the district court that “it does appear that . . . current Fourth
    Circuit precedent forecloses [it].” He noted, however, that there was “a current Supreme
    Court case pending” — namely, Wooden v. United States — that might show “that
    Thompson [was] decided wrongly.” He also continued to press his earlier arguments made
    under Descamps and Mathis. The district court overruled Brown’s objection, relying on
    “the existing authority of the Fourth Circuit,” i.e., Thompson.
    5
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253       Doc: 46          Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 6 of 35
    From the district court’s judgment, Brown filed this appeal. We thereafter placed
    his appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Wooden, and after that
    decision was issued, the parties filed their briefs.
    II
    ACCA provides for enhanced penalties for § 922(g) violations when (1) the
    defendant has three prior convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense and
    (2) those offenses were “committed on occasions different from one another.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1). Brown contends that the second prong — the “different occasions” phrase —
    constitutes an element of a distinct, aggravated § 922(g) offense that must be alleged in the
    indictment and be either found by the jury or admitted by the defendant in his guilty plea.
    To support his argument, he relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490 (2000)
    (holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty
    for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and
    proved beyond a reasonable doubt”), and Alleyne v. United States, 
    570 U.S. 99
    , 103, 111
    n.1 (2013) (holding that “any fact that increases the mandatory minimum [sentence] is an
    ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury” but “not revisit[ing]” the “exception to this
    general rule for the fact of a prior conviction”). Brown acknowledges that the Supreme
    Court continues to recognize that the fact of a prior conviction remains an exception that
    may be found by the sentencing judge, and thus he focuses his argument on the second
    prong — the “different occasions” phrase. See Apprendi, 
    530 U.S. at 490
    ; Almendarez-
    Torres, 
    523 U.S. at 244
    . He also acknowledges that we specifically rejected the argument
    6
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253       Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 7 of 35
    as to the “different occasions” phrase in Thompson, where we held that the district court
    could constitutionally determine at sentencing that the defendant committed qualifying
    offenses on different occasions. 
    421 F.3d at
    285–86.
    To avoid the consequence of Thompson’s binding authority, Brown argues that it
    has been “fatally undermined” by two different strands of “intervening Supreme Court
    precedent.” First, he contends that in reaching its holding, the Thompson court construed
    the scope of the Almendarez-Torres exception in a manner inconsistent with the Supreme
    Court’s subsequent reasoning in Descamps and Mathis. Second, he contends that “the
    Thompson majority relied on an interpretation of the different-occasions standard that is
    inconsistent with Wooden.” “Taken together,” he maintains, Descamps and Mathis,
    combined with Wooden, “dictate that the ACCA enhancement creates an aggravated felon-
    in-possession offense” and that the Constitution requires that the “different-occasion
    element” of that aggravated offense “be charged in an indictment and either admitted by
    the defendant as part of a guilty plea or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.”
    The government initially argued that “[t]he district court properly applied the Armed
    Career Criminal Act without requiring an allegation in the indictment or a finding by a jury
    that Brown committed his predicate offenses on different occasions.” Subsequently,
    however, the government advised us that, in light of Wooden, “the Solicitor General has
    determined that a jury must find, or a defendant must admit, that a defendant’s predicates
    under the Armed Career Criminal Act were committed on occasions different from one
    another.” As it stands, therefore, the government has changed its position and now agrees
    7
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253        Doc: 46        Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 8 of 35
    that Brown is correct on the merits of his argument, although it maintains that the error
    here was harmless.
    While this is unusual, it does not follow that we are required to accede to the parties’
    view of such an important issue. This is especially so when we, sitting as a three-judge
    panel, may not be permitted to reach that conclusion given our precedents on this issue.
    See McMellon v. United States, 
    387 F.3d 329
    , 332–33 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc)
    (recognizing that “one panel cannot overrule a decision issued by another panel” but that
    one panel may conclude that the prior decision is no longer binding because it “has been
    overruled by an intervening opinion from this court sitting en banc or the Supreme Court”).
    Thus, the precise question before us is the relatively narrow one of whether our
    precedent holding that the district court should determine at sentencing whether ACCA’s
    recidivism enhancement is applicable — including whether the defendant committed the
    three predicate offenses “on occasions different from one another” — is no longer binding
    in light of intervening Supreme Court decisions.
    Beginning with some general principles, we recognize that in a federal prosecution,
    the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require that the government allege in the indictment all
    the elements of the crime charged and, unless the defendant waives his right to a jury trial
    and pleads guilty, prove each element to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jones v.
    United States, 
    526 U.S. 227
    , 232 (1999); see also U.S. Const. amend. V (requiring that
    crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment); 
    id.
     amend. VI (requiring that “[i]n
    all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by
    an impartial jury”). Thus, “[m]uch turns on the determination that a fact is an element of
    8
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46          Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 9 of 35
    an offense,” as distinct from a sentencing factor. Jones, 562 U.S. at 232 (emphasis added);
    see also Apprendi, 
    530 U.S. at 500
     (Thomas, J., concurring) (“All of these constitutional
    protections turn on determining which facts constitute the ‘crime’ — that is, which facts
    are the ‘elements’ . . . of a crime”). And in defining elements, the Court has held, subject
    to one exception, that the Constitution requires that “any fact that increases the penalty for
    a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” be treated as an element of an
    aggravated offense — with the consequence that it must be alleged in any federal
    indictment, “submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 
    530 U.S. at 490
    ; see also Alleyne, 
    570 U.S. at 103
    , 111 n.1 (extending Apprendi and holding
    that “any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an ‘element,’” but continuing to
    recognize “a narrow exception to this general rule”). The exception preserved in both
    Apprendi and Alleyne is a penalty enhancement based on recidivism — i.e., a defendant’s
    prior convictions for crimes — as described in Almendarez-Torres. Because Brown’s
    argument turns in large part on the proper understanding of the scope of that exception, we
    turn first to examining Almendarez-Torres.
    In Almendarez-Torres, the defendant was given an enhanced penalty for an
    immigration offense, as authorized by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    . That provision makes it a crime
    for a person who was previously deported from the United States to return without
    permission, and while that crime ordinarily carries a maximum sentence of 2 years’
    imprisonment, the statute also authorizes an enhanced sentence of up to 20 years’
    imprisonment if the initial deportation took place after the person was convicted of an
    aggravated felony. See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a), (b)(2). The question presented was whether
    9
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253       Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 10 of 35
    the condition for the higher maximum sentence was an element of a separate crime or
    whether it was a “penalty provision” authorizing the court to impose an enhanced sentence
    based on the defendant’s recidivism. Almendarez-Torres, 
    523 U.S. at 226
    . The Court
    concluded that it was the latter, 
    id.,
     and in doing so, it specifically considered and rejected
    the defendant’s argument that “the Constitution requires Congress to treat recidivism as an
    element of the offense — irrespective of Congress’ contrary intent,” 
    id. at 239
    . The Court
    explained that “recidivism . . . is a traditional, if not the most traditional, basis for a
    sentencing court’s increasing an offender’s sentence.” 
    Id. at 243
    . Indeed, the Court gave
    special emphasis to that fact, stating that “recidivism . . . is as typical a sentencing factor
    as one might imagine.” 
    Id. at 230
    . And in the course of this discussion, the Court
    specifically identified ACCA as an example of another statute that provides for recidivism
    as a sentencing factor to be found by a court. 
    Id.
     (citing 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)). The Court
    explained that recidivism was “distinct” from other sentence-enhancing factors insofar as
    “recidivism ‘does not relate to the commission of the offense, but goes to the punishment
    only, and therefore . . . may be subsequently decided.’” 
    Id. at 244
     (emphasis altered)
    (quoting Graham v. West Virginia, 
    224 U.S. 616
    , 629 (1912)).
    The Almendarez-Torres Court noted further that, “[c]onsistent with [the] tradition”
    of treating recidivism as a sentencing matter for the court, it had recognized “long ago”
    that the government “need not allege a defendant’s prior conviction in the indictment or
    information that alleges the elements of an underlying crime.” 
    523 U.S. at
    243–44
    (emphasis omitted) (citing Graham, 
    224 U.S. at 624
    ; Oyler v. Boles, 
    368 U.S. 448
    , 452
    (1962); Parke v. Raley, 
    506 U.S. 20
    , 27 (1992)). Thus, the Court explained, “to hold that
    10
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253       Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 11 of 35
    the Constitution requires that recidivism be deemed an ‘element’ of petitioner’s offense
    would mark an abrupt departure from a longstanding tradition of treating recidivism as [a
    sentencing factor] going to the punishment only.” 
    Id. at 244
     (cleaned up). The Court
    concluded that the Constitution did not require that “abrupt” recharacterization of
    recidivism, and it accordingly “reject[ed] petitioner’s constitutional claim that his
    recidivism must be treated as an element of his offense.” 
    Id. at 247
    .
    Almendarez-Torres thus stands for the proposition that facts showing recidivism are
    distinct from other facts that alter the statutory sentencing range for the crime charged and
    that the Constitution does not require that facts demonstrating recidivism be treated as
    elements of a distinct, aggravated offense. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself confirmed this
    understanding of the scope of its Almendarez-Torres’ holding in Jones, stating that its
    “precise holding” in that case was that “recidivism increasing the maximum penalty need
    not be . . . charged” in the indictment and that this “holding . . . rested in substantial part
    on the tradition of regarding recidivism as a sentencing factor, not as an element.” Jones,
    
    526 U.S. at
    248–49.
    Thereafter, in Apprendi, Almendarez-Torres was again left undisturbed. To be sure,
    the Apprendi Court observed that “it [was] arguable that Almendarez-Torres was
    incorrectly decided.” Apprendi, 
    530 U.S. at 489
    . Yet, the Apprendi Court nonetheless
    chose not to “revisit” Almendarez-Torres and instead to “treat the case as a narrow
    exception to the general rule.” 
    Id. at 490
     (emphasis added). It identified two “reasons
    supporting” its recognition of this recidivism exception. 
    Id. at 496
    . First, tracking the
    rationale of Almendarez-Torres itself, the Apprendi Court explained that “[w]hereas
    11
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253       Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 12 of 35
    recidivism ‘does not relate to the commission of the offense’ itself,” the fact at issue before
    it was whether, in committing a lesser included firearm offense, the defendant had acted
    with a particular purpose, which went “precisely to what happened in the ‘commission of
    the offense.’” 
    Id.
     (quoting Almendarez-Torres, 
    523 U.S. at 244
    ). Second, the Apprendi
    Court reasoned that “there is a vast difference between accepting the validity of a prior
    judgment of conviction entered in a proceeding in which the defendant had the right to a
    jury trial and the right to require the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
    and allowing the judge to find the required fact under a lesser standard of proof.” 
    Id.
     The
    Court thus recognized, in shorthand form, the Almendarez-Torres exception, stating that
    “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime
    beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond
    a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 490 (emphasis added). There was no discussion in Apprendi
    suggesting that with that holding, the Court intended to modify or narrow the scope of the
    Almendarez-Torres holding, even though the Apprendi Court referred to the recidivism
    exception based on that decision simply as “the fact of a prior conviction.” Id.
    After Apprendi, defendants around the country who had been convicted of § 922(g)
    offenses relied on it to argue that their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights had been violated
    when district courts determined at sentencing that ACCA’s enhanced penalties were
    applicable. They urged that in light of Apprendi, courts should treat ACCA’s requirements
    as elements of a distinct, aggravated § 922(g) offense. Those arguments, however, were
    uniformly rejected by every court of appeals — including our own — and they did so by
    recognizing that Almendarez-Torres remained binding law, notwithstanding Apprendi. See
    12
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46          Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 13 of 
    35 Thompson, 421
     F.3d 278; see also, e.g., United States v. Moore, 
    286 F.3d 47
    , 51 (1st Cir.
    2002) (“In the post-Apprendi era, we have ruled with a regularity bordering on the
    monotonous that, given the explicit exception and the force of Almendarez-Torres, the
    rationale of Apprendi does not apply to sentence-enhancement provisions based upon prior
    criminal convictions,” including ACCA); United States v. Santiago, 
    268 F.3d 151
    , 155 (2d
    Cir. 2001); United States v. Blair, 
    734 F.3d 218
    , 226–28 (3d Cir. 2013); United States v.
    White, 
    465 F.3d 250
    , 254 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); United States v. Burgin, 
    388 F.3d 177
    , 183–87 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Morris, 
    293 F.3d 1010
    , 1012–13 (7th Cir.
    2002); United States v. Harris, 
    794 F.3d 885
    , 887 (8th Cir. 2015); United States v. Grisel,
    
    488 F.3d 844
    , 845–47 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), abrogated in part on other grounds by
    United States v. Stitt, 
    139 S. Ct. 399 (2018)
    ; United States v. Michel, 
    446 F.3d 1122
    , 1132–
    33 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Spears, 
    443 F.3d 1358
    , 1361 (11th Cir. 2006); United
    States v. Thomas, 
    572 F.3d 945
    , 952 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
    While Brown accepts the continued vitality of the Almendarez-Torres exception
    insofar as it relates to the mere fact of a prior conviction, he contends that the Almendarez-
    Torres exception does not reach ACCA’s second requirement — that the prior convictions
    be for offenses committed on different occasions. Yet, most, if not all, of the courts of
    appeals — again including our own — have also considered and rejected that argument.
    See 
    Thompson, 421
     F.3d at 284–87; see also, e.g., Santiago, 
    268 F.3d at
    156–57
    (Sotomayor, J.) (“[W]e are satisfied . . . that § 924(e)’s ‘different occasions’ requirement
    falls safely within the range of facts traditionally found by judges at sentencing and is
    sufficiently interwoven with the facts of the prior crimes that Apprendi does not require
    13
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 14 of 35
    different fact-finders and different burdens of proof for Section 924(e)’s various
    requirements”); Blair, 
    734 F.3d at
    226–28 (relying on “the continuing control of
    Almendarez-Torres” to reject the argument); Burgin, 
    388 F.3d at 186
     (“[W]e conclude that
    the determinations by a district court that prior felony convictions exist and were
    committed on different occasions, are so intimately related that the ‘different occasions’
    requirement of § 924(e) sufficiently comes within the exception in Apprendi for a prior
    conviction”); Morris, 
    293 F.3d at
    1012–13 (“Unless and until the Court chooses to overrule
    Almendarez-Torres, we are bound by it. . . . Morris has failed to articulate a reasoned basis
    for distinguishing [whether the predicate offenses were committed on different occasions]
    from other factors traditionally considered in enhancing a sentence based on recidivism”);
    Harris, 
    794 F.3d at 887
     (“Whether prior offenses were committed on different occasions
    is among the recidivism-related facts covered by the rule of Almendarez-Torres”); United
    States v. Harris, 
    447 F.3d 1300
    , 1304 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that the “separateness [of
    occasions] falls within [Apprendi’s] prior crimes exception”); United States v. Longoria,
    
    874 F.3d 1278
    , 1283 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“Longoria’s claim that his Fifth and
    Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the District Court determining his convictions
    occurred on different occasions is unavailing”).
    Most relevant here, of course, is our Thompson precedent, which clearly rejected
    the precise argument that Brown raises, relying on the full scope of the Almendarez-Torres
    exception. While the dissenting judge in Thompson did argue that Almendarez-Torres had
    been limited to the “fact of a prior conviction” and not to facts “about a prior conviction,”
    
    421 F.3d at 292
     (Wilkins, C.J., dissenting), the majority held that in applying ACCA’s
    14
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253       Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 15 of 35
    recidivism enhancement, sentencing courts could consult “conclusive judicial records”
    from the defendant’s prior criminal proceeding, “take notice of the . . . dates [and] locations
    of [the prior offenses]” as reflected in those records, as well as other information relevant
    to the “different occasions” question, and on that limited basis determine whether the
    government had established that the defendant had committed the offenses that resulted in
    his three prior qualifying convictions on separate occasions. 
    Thompson, 421
     F.3d at 286.
    Because Almendarez-Torres had held that the Constitution did not require that “recidivism
    . . . be treated as an element,” 
    523 U.S. at 247
    , we concluded that limited judicial fact-
    finding with respect to the defendant’s prior convictions did not violate the defendant’s
    Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights, 
    Thompson, 421
     F.3d at 284–87.
    Brown does indeed acknowledge that Thompson is squarely on point and thus would
    foreclose his argument if it were still good law. But he maintains that Thompson is no
    longer controlling because it has been “fatally undermined” by the Supreme Court’s
    intervening decisions in Descamps, Mathis, and Wooden. We therefore must turn to those
    cases to determine whether they overruled or narrowed the Court’s earlier holding in
    Almendarez-Torres.
    First, the Supreme Court’s decision in Wooden — the most recent of the cases relied
    on by Brown and the one prompting the government to reconsider its views on ACCA’s
    sentencing enhancement — addresses specifically the meaning of the “different occasions”
    phrase in ACCA’s second prong. See 142 S. Ct. at 1068. The Wooden Court concluded
    that the word “occasion” in ACCA should be given its “ordinary meaning” — “essentially
    an episode or event,” id. at 1069, and that, as a result, “a range of circumstances may be
    15
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 16 of 35
    relevant to identifying” whether multiple criminal offenses were committed on one
    occasion or separate ones, id. at 1071; see also id. at 1071 n.4. Key among the factors
    recognized by the Court as relevant to the inquiry were the timing of the offenses and their
    locations. See id. at 1071. Thus, the Court explained that “a single factor — especially of
    time or place — can decisively differentiate occasions,” and it noted with approval that
    “[c]ourts . . . have nearly always treated offenses as occurring on separate occasions if a
    person committed them a day or more apart, or at a significant distance.” Id. (cleaned up).
    By contrast, “a continuous stream of closely related criminal acts at one location”
    represents “a single occasion,” id., even if those crimes were committed “sequentially
    rather than simultaneously,” id. at 1068. Thus, the Court held that to determine whether
    prior offenses were committed on different occasions, courts should apply a “multi-
    factored” test in which “a range of circumstances may be relevant.” Id. at 1070–71.
    Wooden is thus a statutory decision, not a constitutional one, and the Court stated as
    much, noting that while “[t]wo amici curiae [had] briefed . . . whether the Sixth
    Amendment requires that a jury, rather than a judge, resolve whether prior crimes occurred
    on a single occasion,” it was “not address[ing] that issue because Wooden did not raise it.”
    142 S. Ct. at 1068 n.3. The Wooden decision not only did not address the constitutional
    question that is before us — whether ACCA’s requirement that the defendant have
    committed his prior crimes on different occasions must be treated as an element of an
    aggravated offense — it did not even cite Almendarez-Torres, which held that such
    recidivism provisions are not elements of an aggravated offense, Almendarez-Torres, 
    523 U.S. at
    239–47.
    16
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 17 of 35
    Given that Wooden specifically stated that it was not addressing the constitutional
    question presented in this case, it is hardly controlling on the question of whether
    recidivism is a sentencing matter or an element of an aggravated offense so as to undermine
    our holding in Thompson. Indeed, as a matter of statutory interpretation, Wooden is largely
    consistent with Thompson, as we noted in Thompson that “several factors” are relevant to
    the different occasions inquiry, chief among them “the date and location of an offense.”
    
    Thompson, 421
     F.3d at 285–86. In short, Wooden clarifies what is relevant to determining
    that the defendant’s prior predicate offenses were committed on different occasions, but it
    is silent as to who (judge or jury) should make that determination.               As such,
    notwithstanding Brown’s claim to the contrary, Wooden does not undermine the validity
    of our holding in Thompson. Accord United States v. Reed, 
    39 F.4th 1285
    , 1295–96 (10th
    Cir. 2022) (emphasizing that “recently, when given the opportunity to decide ‘whether the
    Sixth Amendment requires that a jury . . . resolve whether prior crimes occurred on a single
    occasion[,]’ . . . the Supreme Court declined to reach the issue” and reasoning that while
    “[t]he Supreme Court may” address the issue in the future “and reach a different result”
    than the Tenth Circuit previously had, its own precedent on the issue would remain binding
    “until then” (quoting Wooden, 142 S. Ct. at 1068 n.3)); United States v. Stowell, 
    40 F.4th 882
    , 885 (8th Cir. 2022) (concluding that “[t]he problem” with the defendant’s Apprendi
    argument as to ACCA’s occasions phrase “is that [it] is foreclosed by [Eighth Circuit]
    precedent” and that “nothing in Wooden changed this”), vacated by grant of reh’g en banc,
    No. 21-2234, 
    2022 WL 16942355
     (8th Cir. Nov. 15, 2022).
    17
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 18 of 35
    In addition to Wooden, Brown also relies on Descamps and Mathis to argue that,
    despite our prior holding in Thompson, we are compelled to conclude that ACCA’s
    different occasions requirement is an element of an aggravated offense, rather than a
    sentencing factor for the district court to determine. But this argument can be made only
    if Descamps or Mathis either overruled or narrowed the holding of Almendarez-Torres.
    We now turn to those decisions.
    First, neither Descamps nor Mathis considered ACCA’s “different occasions”
    phrase. Instead, both addressed ACCA’s first requirement that the defendant have “three
    previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense,” 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1), as those terms are statutorily defined, see 
    id.
     § 924(e)(2)(A), (B), and, in
    particular, the categorical approach required for determining whether prior convictions
    qualified as predicates. Prior to Descamps and Mathis, the Supreme Court had long held
    that when determining whether one of a defendant’s prior convictions qualified as a
    predicate conviction for ACCA, sentencing courts were to use the “categorical approach,”
    which involved “‘look[ing] only to the statutory definitions’ — i.e., the elements — of a
    defendant’s prior offenses, and not ‘to the particular facts underlying those convictions.’”
    Descamps, 570 U.S. at 261 (quoting Taylor v. United States, 
    495 U.S. 575
    , 600 (1990)).
    In cases like Taylor and Shepard v. United States, 
    544 U.S. 13
     (2005), the Court had also
    developed a “modified categorical approach,” which, when applicable, permitted the
    sentencing court “to examine a limited class of documents” from the defendant’s prior
    criminal proceeding in order to determine whether the resulting conviction qualified as an
    ACCA predicate. Descamps, 570 U.S. at 262.
    18
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 19 of 35
    At issue in both Descamps and Mathis was the question of when a court could apply
    the modified categorical approach to facilitate the determination of whether a prior
    conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate. Specifically, in Descamps, the Court held
    “that sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach when the crime
    of which the defendant was convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements.” 570 U.S.
    at 258. Instead, Descamps confirmed, the modified categorical approach may only be
    employed “when a defendant was convicted of violating a divisible statute” with
    “alternative elements . . . [that] effectively creates several different crimes,” and then it
    may be used only to determine “which [crime] the defendant was convicted of,” so that the
    sentencing court may then determine whether the elements of that crime establish that it is
    categorically a “violent felony” or a “serious drug offense.” Id. at 263–64 (cleaned up).
    Similarly, in Mathis, the Court held that if the statute of conviction “enumerates various
    [alternative] means of committing a single element,” rather than alternative elements, then
    the modified categorical approach could not be used, thus making it critical for courts to
    determine correctly whether the items enumerated in an alternatively phrased statute of
    conviction were “elements” or “means.” 579 U.S. at 506 (emphasis added). Thus, the
    holdings of Descamps and Mathis contribute nothing to the issue before us.
    Brown, however, seizes on limited portions of the Court’s reasoning in those
    decisions to argue that they demonstrate that the Court has, by negative inference, narrowed
    the Almendarez-Torres exception to include only the fact that the defendant was previously
    convicted of a particular crime and that other facts establishing the defendant’s recidivism
    must be alleged in indictments and proved to juries as elements of an aggravated offense.
    19
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46          Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 20 of 35
    In both Descamps and Mathis, the Court explained that its caselaw “establishing
    [an] elements-centric, ‘formal categorical approach’” for evaluating whether a defendant’s
    prior convictions qualified as ACCA predicate convictions had consistently relied on “three
    grounds.” Descamps, 570 U.S. at 267; accord Mathis, 579 U.S. at 510. The first of those
    was “ACCA’s text and history” — namely, that by “increas[ing] the sentence of a
    defendant who has three ‘previous convictions’ for a violent felony,” “Congress intended
    the sentencing court to look only to the fact that the defendant had been convicted of crimes
    falling within certain categories, and not to the facts underlying the prior convictions.”
    Descamps, 570 U.S. at 267 (emphasis added) (quoting Taylor, 
    495 U.S. at 600
    ); see also
    Mathis, 579 U.S. at 511. A second reason relied on was grounded on “the practical
    difficulties and potential unfairness of a factual approach,” Descamps, 
    570 U.S. at 267
    (quoting Taylor, 
    495 U.S. at 600
    ), with the Court cautioning that “[s]tatements of ‘non-
    elemental fact’ in the records of prior convictions are prone to error precisely because their
    proof is unnecessary,” Mathis, 579 U.S. at 512 (quoting Descamps, 
    570 U.S. at 270
    ). And
    the third reason reiterated in Descamps and Mathis for strictly limiting the use of the
    modified categorical approach was “the categorical approach’s Sixth Amendment
    underpinnings.” Descamps, 
    570 U.S. at 269
    ; see also Mathis, 579 U.S. at 511–12.
    Specifically, noting that Apprendi had “held that ‘[o]ther than the fact of a prior
    conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory
    maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt,’” the
    Descamps Court observed that because a district “court’s finding of a predicate offense
    [under ACCA] indisputably increases the maximum penalty[,] . . . that finding would (at
    20
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253       Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 21 of 35
    the least) raise serious Sixth Amendment concerns if it went beyond merely identifying a
    prior conviction.” 570 U.S. at 269 (quoting Apprendi, 
    530 U.S. at 490
    ). The Court further
    noted that it had previously recognized that “[t]hose concerns . . . counsel[led] against
    allowing a sentencing court to ‘make a disputed’ determination ‘about what the defendant
    and state judge must have understood as the factual basis of the prior plea,’ or what the
    jury in a prior trial must have accepted as the theory of the crime,” hence the “insistence
    on the categorical approach.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Shepard, 
    544 U.S. at 25
     (plurality opinion)).
    By contrast, Descamps explained, by allowing the modified categorical approach to be
    employed whenever the statute of conviction encompasses more conduct than a qualifying
    offense, the lower court’s “ruling [had] flout[ed] [that] reasoning . . . by extending judicial
    factfinding beyond the recognition of a prior conviction.” 
    Id.
     And therein lay “the
    constitutional rub”:
    The Sixth Amendment contemplates that a jury — not a sentencing court —
    will find such facts, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. And the
    only facts the court can be sure the jury so found are those constituting
    elements of the offense — as distinct from amplifying but legally extraneous
    circumstances. Similarly, as Shepard indicated, when a defendant pleads
    guilty to a crime, he waives his right to a jury determination of only that
    offense’s elements; whatever he says, or fails to say, about superfluous facts
    cannot license a later sentencing court to impose extra punishment.
    
    Id.
     at 269–70 (citation omitted).
    Mathis subsequently echoed that “serious Sixth Amendment concerns” had been
    one of the grounds for the Court’s development of and adherence to a strict categorical
    approach for the identification of qualifying predicate convictions. See 579 U.S. at 511–
    12. And, in elaborating on those “concerns,” Mathis stated as follows:
    21
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 22 of 35
    This Court has held that only a jury, and not a judge, may find facts that
    increase a maximum penalty, except for the simple fact of a prior conviction.
    See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490 (2000). That means a judge
    cannot go beyond identifying the crime of conviction to explore the manner
    in which the defendant committed that offense. He is prohibited from
    conducting such an inquiry himself; and so too he is barred from making a
    disputed determination about ‘what the defendant and state judge must have
    understood as the factual basis of the prior plea’ or ‘what the jury in a prior
    trial must have accepted as the theory of the crime.’ He can do no more,
    consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what
    elements, the defendant was convicted of.
    
    Id.
     (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
    While the Supreme Court’s decisions in Descamps and Mathis were focused on
    carrying out the restrictions of the categorical approach, their language at times did
    arguably create some tension with Thompson, where we held that a district court may,
    consistent with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, determine at sentencing that conclusive
    judicial records demonstrate that the offenses giving rise to the defendant’s three prior
    qualifying convictions were committed on different occasions and on that basis apply
    ACCA as a sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Span, 
    789 F.3d 320
    , 331–32
    (4th Cir. 2015) (observing that “[t]he tension between Descamps and Thompson . . . is
    apparent” but also suggesting that “the Supreme Court’s statements in Descamps, while
    foreboding, will most likely be confined to identification of a violent felony under the
    categorical approach”). Yet, the facts other than the fact of conviction were understood in
    both Descamps and Mathis to be those facts that would show that a prior conviction
    involved conduct amounting to a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense,” not the facts
    that would show that prior offenses were committed on different occasions. See Descamps,
    
    570 U.S. at 267
     (noting that a sentencing court may “look only to the fact that the defendant
    22
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46          Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 23 of 35
    had been convicted of crimes falling within certain categories, and not to the facts
    underlying the prior convictions” (quoting Taylor, 
    495 U.S. at 600
    )); Mathis, 579 U.S. at
    509 (emphasizing that a court may only consider the fact of conviction and not the
    underlying facts of each conviction and stating, “How a given defendant actually
    perpetrated the crime — what we have referred to as the underlying brute facts or means
    of commission — makes no difference” (cleaned up)); id. at 510–11 (noting that “a
    sentencing judge may look only to the elements of the offense, not to the facts of the
    defendant’s conduct” and that the sentencing judge “cannot go beyond identifying the
    crime of conviction to explore the manner in which the defendant committed that offense”
    (emphasis added) (cleaned up)). The facts about whether prior offenses were committed
    on different occasions were never considered in either Descamps or Mathis. Thus, whereas
    Almendarez-Torres recognized that sentencing courts may find such other facts as
    necessary to show recidivism, Descamps and Mathis never questioned that. As such,
    Almendarez-Torres was left undisturbed in its holding that recidivism facts may be
    resolved by the sentencing judge.
    Moreover, the same tension suggested as existing between Descamps and Mathis,
    on the one hand, and Thompson, on the other, would also exist between Descamps and
    Mathis, on the one hand, and Almendarez-Torres, on the other. In Almendarez-Torres, the
    Court specifically held that the Constitution does not “require[] Congress to treat
    recidivism [increasing the statutory sentencing range] as an element of the offense” but
    instead permits recidivism to be a sentencing factor found by the court. 
    523 U.S. at 239
    ;
    see also 
    id. at 247
     (“For these reasons, we reject petitioner’s constitutional claim that his
    23
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 24 of 35
    recidivism must be treated as an element of his offense”); Jones, 
    526 U.S. at
    248–49
    (recognizing that “the precise holding” of Almendarez-Torres was “that recidivism
    increasing the maximum penalty need not be . . . charged” as an element of an aggravated
    offense and that that “holding . . . rested in substantial part on the tradition of regarding
    recidivism as a sentencing factor, not as an element”). Yet in Descamps and Mathis, the
    Court never explored that tension with Almendarez-Torres’ holding; indeed, the opinions
    for the Court did not even cite Almendarez-Torres. Until the Supreme Court recognizes
    and resolves any alleged tension, or limits or overrules Almendarez-Torres, we are bound
    to apply it. Accord Blair, 
    734 F.3d at 227
     (holding, after Descamps, that the defendant’s
    constitutional argument with respect to ACCA’s different occasions requirement “fail[s]
    . . . because Almendarez-Torres has not been narrowed and remains the law”); see also
    United States v. Walker, 
    953 F.3d 577
    , 581 (9th Cir. 2020) (rejecting defendant’s argument
    that its precedent on the issue had been “implicitly overruled by Mathis,” reasoning that
    “Mathis . . . only proscribed judges from determining whether a given factual scenario
    substantially qualifies as a predicate offense” and “did not speak to courts looking at dates
    of conviction”).
    At bottom, because ACCA’s sentencing enhancement for § 922(g) offenses is
    indisputably based on the defendant’s recidivism, we conclude that, under Almendarez-
    Torres, the facts establishing the enhancement remain sentencing facts, not elements of a
    separate aggravated crime. Those sentencing facts are that the defendant have three prior
    convictions for specified offenses committed on different occasions, and together they
    form the basis of a single “penalty provision [that] simply authorizes a court to increase
    24
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 25 of 35
    the sentence for a recidivist.” Almendarez-Torres, 
    523 U.S. at 226
    . Importantly, those
    recidivism facts do “not define a separate crime.” 
    Id.
     And, “[c]onsequently, neither the
    statute nor the Constitution requires the Government” to treat ACCA’s different occasions
    requirement “as an element of” an aggravated version of one of the § 922(g) offenses. Id.
    at 226–27, 247. Moreover, the facts addressed by Almendarez-Torres are recidivism facts
    and are therefore distinct from the facts referred to in Descamps and Mathis, which
    addressed and prohibited consideration of the facts of conduct underlying each prior
    conviction. See Descamps, 
    570 U.S. at 267
    ; Mathis, 579 U.S. at 509–10.
    We understand Brown’s argument to be that language in Descamps and Mathis
    shows that Apprendi had excepted from an indictment and jury only the simple fact of a
    prior conviction, demonstrating that the Almendarez-Torres exception is more limited than
    previously understood. But the Court’s analysis in Descamps and Mathis, which did not
    discuss Almendarez-Torres, was guided by the binary question before the Court in both
    cases regarding whether the first prong of the ACCA enhancement — whether the
    defendant has three previous qualifying convictions — is found by the fact of a prior
    conviction or by the facts underlying the prior conviction. Those decisions never suggested
    that they were limiting or narrowing Almendarez-Torres’ application with respect to facts
    demonstrating the defendant’s recidivism. Rather, they were addressing only the one
    aspect of recidivism that required a showing of three prior convictions.
    Indeed, against the background of Almendarez-Torres and the rationale for
    recognizing an exception to Apprendi based on it, Brown’s argument that the exception has
    been limited to the mere fact of conviction would lead to irrational consequences. To
    25
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253        Doc: 46        Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 26 of 35
    begin, it appears that Apprendi could not have narrowed Almendarez-Torres in the manner
    that Brown suggests without reversing the actual result that the Almendarez-Torres Court
    reached. The statutory enhancement there required that the defendant’s prior deportation
    have occurred “subsequent to” the predicate conviction. 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b)(2) (emphasis
    added). Thus, to find that the defendant was subject to the enhanced penalty provided by
    § 1326(b)(2), the sentencing court had to find not only that the defendant had been
    convicted of an aggravated felony but also that he had been convicted of that felony before
    his previous deportation. This sequence was essential. Yet, despite the fact that the
    sentencing court could apply the enhanced penalty only if it made this additional finding,
    Almendarez-Torres held that “Congress intended [§ 1326(b)(2)] to set forth a sentencing
    factor” for a judge’s determination, rather than an element of “a separate crime.” 
    523 U.S. at 230
    . And it further held that the Constitution permitted Congress to make that choice
    and elect to “authorize courts to impose longer sentences upon recidivists who commit a
    particular crime.”    
    Id. at 238
     (emphasis added).      This demonstrates that we, as an
    intermediate court, are not at liberty to read the “fact of a prior conviction” exception
    preserved in Apprendi and Alleyne as literally limited to the bare fact of a prior conviction.
    Otherwise, the result reached in Almendarez-Torres could not have stood. But yet all agree
    that the Supreme Court has not overturned Almendarez-Torres, notwithstanding repeated
    calls from one member of the Court to do so. See, e.g., Sessions v. Dimaya, 
    138 S. Ct. 1204
    , 1253 (2018) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“The exception recognized in Almendarez-
    Torres for prior convictions is an aberration, has been seriously undermined by subsequent
    precedents, and should be reconsidered”); Mathis, 579 U.S. at 522 (Thomas, J.,
    26
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 27 of 35
    concurring); Descamps, 
    570 U.S. at
    280–81 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment);
    Shepard, 
    544 U.S. at 28
     (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)
    (“Almendarez-Torres was wrongly decided” and, “in an appropriate case, this Court should
    consider [its] continuing viability”); see also Apprendi, 
    530 U.S. at
    499–523 (Thomas, J.,
    concurring) (writing “separately to explain [his] view that the Constitution requires a
    broader rule than the Court adopts,” with no fact of a prior conviction exception).
    Moreover, Almendarez-Torres was based on the rationale that “recidivism does not
    relate to the commission of the [instant] offense, but goes to the punishment only.” 
    523 U.S. at 244
     (cleaned up). And recognizing this, Apprendi explained that the Almendarez-
    Torres exception was based on facts distinct from the facts of the crime being prosecuted.
    See Apprendi, 
    530 U.S. at 488
    . The Court, in its decisions subsequent to Almendarez-
    Torres, has not undermined or dismissed the rationale that lies at the heart of Almendarez-
    Torres. This “distinct nature” of recidivism, which is defined by what the defendant did in
    the past before the conduct of his charged crime, is a sound reason to conclude — as,
    indeed, the Supreme Court has held — that the Constitution does not require “recidivism
    [to] be treated as an element of” an aggravated offense. Almendarez-Torres, 
    523 U.S. at 244, 247
     (cleaned up). Yet, despite this rationale inherent in Almendarez-Torres, Brown
    would have the jury decide whether prior offenses were committed on different occasions,
    even before the court at sentencing had found the fact of the prior convictions.
    On a more practical level, and one implicating fundamental fairness, if recidivism
    were to be understood as an element of an aggravated offense, the result would be that any
    defendant who exercised his right to a jury trial could face having certain portions of his
    27
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46          Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 28 of 35
    criminal history dragged in front of the jury tasked with deciding whether he has committed
    the instant offense. Thus, for example, if Brown were correct, he would not simply have
    been charged with possessing a firearm while knowing he had been convicted of a crime
    punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1); he would have been charged with the aggravated crime of possessing a firearm
    while knowing he had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
    exceeding one year and after “committ[ing] on occasions different from one another” three
    crimes that qualify categorically as violent felonies or serious drug offenses.
    Of course, a defendant charged with such an aggravated offense who chose to go to
    trial might be able to simply stipulate that he had three prior predicate convictions for
    crimes that occurred on different occasions. See Old Chief v. United States, 
    519 U.S. 172
    ,
    191–92 (1997). But “[e]ven if a defendant’s stipulation were to keep the name and details
    of the previous offense[s] from the jury, jurors would still learn, from the indictment, the
    judge, or the prosecutor, that the defendant had committed” three offenses that qualify as
    violent felonies or serious drug offenses. Almendarez-Torres, 
    523 U.S. at 235
     (citation
    omitted). And the Supreme Court “has long recognized [that] the introduction of evidence
    of a defendant’s prior crimes risks significant prejudice” and that “‘evidence of the . . .
    nature of the prior offense’” only increases that risk. 
    Id.
     (quoting Old Chief, 
    519 U.S. at 185
    ). Thus, “[w]hile some defendants might benefit from a requirement that all facts —
    except the fact of prior conviction, interpreted in the narrowest possible sense — be found
    by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, . . . such a requirement is far more likely to prejudice
    rather than protect defendants,” Santiago, 
    268 F.3d at 156
    , a consideration that may well
    28
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023        Pg: 29 of 35
    counsel hesitation before a declaration is made that that is what the Constitution
    nonetheless requires in order to adequately protect defendants’ rights.
    As it stands for now, we, as a court of appeals, remain bound by Almendarez-Torres,
    which we do not understand the Supreme Court to have narrowed or modified in the
    manner suggested by Brown. And the negative inferences that Brown advances based on
    some language in subsequent cases are for the Supreme Court to draw, not a court of
    appeals. See, e.g., Agostini v. Felton, 
    521 U.S. 203
    , 237 (1997) (“We do not acknowledge,
    and we do not hold, that other courts should conclude our more recent cases have, by
    implication, overruled an earlier precedent. We reaffirm that ‘if a precedent of this Court
    has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line
    of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving
    to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions’” (emphasis added) (quoting
    Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 
    490 U.S. 477
    , 484 (1989))).
    Thus, unless and until the Supreme Court expressly overturns or narrows Almendarez-
    Torres, we conclude that our precedent in Thompson remains good law and that, based on
    the Almendarez-Torres exception to Apprendi’s general rule, it does not offend the
    Constitution to treat ACCA — including its “different occasions” requirement — as an
    enhancement to be applied by the district court at sentencing. See 
    Thompson, 421
     F.3d at
    285–86; see also United States v. Moon, 
    31 F.4th 259
    , 263–64 (4th Cir. 2022) (concluding,
    post-Wooden, that ACCA is not “a standalone criminal offense” but instead “merely a
    sentencing enhancement”).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
    29
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253   Doc: 46   Filed: 05/03/2023   Pg: 30 of 35
    AFFIRMED.
    30
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46          Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 31 of 35
    TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:
    I agree this panel may not grant relief, but only because of the “pruden[tial]” rule
    that “one panel cannot overrule a decision issued by another panel.” McMellon v. United
    States, 
    387 F.3d 329
    , 332, 334 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc). I thus concur in the judgment.
    In the past 20 years, the Supreme Court has incanted the same constitutional rule no
    fewer than nine times: “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the
    penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury,
    and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490
    (2000). *
    I see two routes for saying a judge may decide whether a defendant, like Brown,
    committed previous offenses “on occasions different from one another,” 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1), without violating Apprendi’s constitutional rule. The problem is Supreme
    Court decisions have blocked both paths.
    The first avenue would be concluding the “different occasions” question presents
    an issue of law rather than one of fact. After all, nothing in the Apprendi line of cases
    disturbs “the good old rule that on questions of fact it is the province of the jury, [and] on
    *
    See United States v. Cotton, 
    535 U.S. 625
    , 627 (2002); Harris v. United States,
    
    536 U.S. 545
    , 563 (2002) (overruled on other grounds by Alleyne v. United States, 
    570 U.S. 99
     (2013)); Schriro v. Summerlin, 
    542 U.S. 348
    , 350 (2004); Blakely v. Washington,
    
    542 U.S. 296
    , 301 (2004); United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 231 (2005); Washington
    v. Recuenco, 
    548 U.S. 212
    , 216 (2006); Southern Union Co. v. United States, 
    567 U.S. 343
    ,
    348 (2012); Descamps v. United States, 
    570 U.S. 254
    , 269 (2013); see also Jones v. United
    States, 
    526 U.S. 227
    , 243 n.6 (1999) (“[A]ny fact (other than prior conviction) that
    increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to
    a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
    31
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46          Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 32 of 35
    questions of law it is the province of the court, to decide.” Sparf v. United States, 
    156 U.S. 51
    , 64 (1895). But whether something happened in the past (here, conviction for a crime)
    is a quintessentially factual question—a point underscored by the Court’s repeated use of
    the words “the fact of a prior conviction.” Worse still, Wooden v. United States, 
    142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022)
    , confirms the different-occasions analysis requires a “multi-factored” inquiry
    into “a range of ” circumstances about a defendant’s prior convictions. 
    Id.
     at 1070–71. And
    probing the details about the “when,” “where,” “how,” and sometimes even “why” of a
    defendant’s previous conduct, see 
    id. at 1071
    , is the precise thing the Sixth Amendment
    forbids judges from doing. See Mathis v. United States, 
    579 U.S. 500
    , 511 (2016) (“[A]
    judge cannot go beyond identifying the crime of conviction to explore the manner in which
    the defendant committed that offense.”).
    The second road would be saying Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 
    523 U.S. 224
    (1998), provides a constitutional get-out-of-jail-free card for certain types of judicial
    factfinding, and the “different occasions” inquiry is one of them. I agree we may not
    overrule a Supreme Court decision or seek to predict whether the Court will do so.
    See Agostini v. Felton, 
    521 U.S. 203
    , 237 (1997). But Almendarez-Torres is not directly
    on point because it involved a different statute (the Immigration and Nationality Act) and
    a different question (whether the defendant in an illegal reentry prosecution was removed
    “subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony”). 
    523 U.S. at 226
    (quoting 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (b)(2)).
    What is more, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said the “narrow exception” to
    Apprendi’s general rule applies only to “the fact of a prior conviction,” Alleyne v. United
    32
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023      Pg: 33 of 35
    States, 
    570 U.S. 99
    , 111 n.1 (2013), or “the simple fact of a prior conviction,” Mathis,
    579 U.S. at 511. But as both the statutory text and Wooden make clear, determining
    whether Brown’s previous offenses were committed “on occasions different from one
    another,” 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1), requires going far beyond the limited fact of his
    convictions. I see no reason why it is any more constitutionally permissible for courts “to
    try to discern what a trial showed, or a plea proceeding revealed, about the defendant’s
    underlying conduct” when the question shifts from whether that conduct was “violent” to
    whether it happened on different “occasions.” Descamps v. United States, 
    570 U.S. 254
    ,
    269 (2013).
    I recognize Almendarez-Torres speaks more broadly about “recidivism” and
    distinguishes between facts that are “sentencing factors” and those that are “elements”
    warranting constitutional safeguards. See, e.g., 
    523 U.S. at 230
    . But the constitutional rule
    we must apply comes from Apprendi, not Almendarez-Torres. So we should be guided by
    the Supreme Court’s repeated counsel about the scope of the “narrow exception” to
    Apprendi’s general rule (Alleyne, 
    570 U.S. at
    111 n.1) rather than sweeping language and
    semantic distinctions that have largely been clawed back by later decisions. See, e.g.,
    United States v. Haymond, 
    139 S. Ct. 2369
    , 2379 (2019) (noting that, since Apprendi, the
    Court has “repeatedly rejected efforts to dodge the demands of the Fifth and Sixth
    Amendments by the simple expedient of relabeling a criminal prosecution a sentencing
    enhancement” (quotation marks omitted)); Mathis, 579 U.S. at 511–12 (stating that, under
    the Sixth Amendment, a judge “can do no more . . . than determine what crime, with what
    elements, the defendant was convicted of ” without mentioning any general “recidivism”
    33
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 34 of 35
    exception); Apprendi, 
    530 U.S. at
    494 & n.19 (dismissing, when it comes to facts that
    “increase beyond the maximum authorized statutory sentence,” any constitutional
    distinction “between ‘elements’ and ‘sentencing factors’”).
    The rub is that most everything I just said has been rejected by previous panels of
    this Court in cases involving the same statute and the same legal question. See United
    States v. Span, 
    789 F.3d 320
    , 330–32 (4th Cir. 2015); United States v. 
    Thompson, 421
     F.3d
    278, 284–87 (4th Cir. 2005). Indeed, the heart of my concern—that the Sixth Amendment
    permits judges to find the “fact of a prior conviction” but not “fact[s] about a prior
    conviction”—was voiced by then-Chief Judge Wilkins in his dissent in Thompson.
    See 
    421 F.3d at 292
     (Wilkins, C.J., dissenting) (quotation marks omitted).
    True, this Court’s precedent allows a panel to depart from an earlier decision that
    has been “overruled . . . by the Supreme Court,” McMellon, 
    387 F.3d at 334
    , or which
    intervening Supreme Court authority renders “no longer tenable,” United States v. Banks,
    
    29 F.4th 168
    , 178 (4th Cir. 2022). But that is a high standard, and I am not confident it is
    satisfied here. Yes, the Supreme Court decided two cases bearing on this question—Mathis
    and Wooden—after this Court reaffirmed its position in United States v. Span, 
    789 F.3d 320
     (4th Cir. 2015). But Mathis largely reiterated the teachings of Descamps v. United
    States, 
    570 U.S. 254
     (2013), which, this Court concluded, did not warrant revisiting
    Thompson. See Span, 
    789 F.3d at
    330–32. And Wooden, in turn, announced a case-specific
    and fact-intensive inquiry for the “different occasions” question not dissimilar to one this
    Court has applied for more than 25 years. See 
    Thompson, 421
     F.3d at 285 (discussing
    34
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-4253      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/03/2023     Pg: 35 of 35
    United States v. Letterlough, 
    63 F.3d 332
    , 335 (4th Cir. 1995)). In short, my arguments are
    not terribly new ones.
    Concluding the choice to revisit this issue belongs to the en banc Court rather than
    this panel, I concur in the decision rejecting Brown’s claim.
    35