United States v. Campbell

United States v. Campbell · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · September 30, 2025 · No. 23-6186

Summary

This Tenth Circuit opinion addresses a direct criminal appeal challenging a defendant’s conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court affirms the denial of a motion to suppress, finding that the officer maintained reasonable suspicion throughout the investigatory detention and frisk. While rejecting a facial constitutional challenge to the felon-in-possession statute, the court vacates the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) sentence, holding that Oklahoma armed robbery convictions do not qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA’s elements clause because they can be committed recklessly. The case is remanded for resentencing.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Writing for the Court
MORITZ; MATHESON; KELLY
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decision date
September 30, 2025
Docket number
23-6186
Procedural posture
Direct criminal appeal challenging conviction, suppression ruling, and sentencing under ACCA.
Standard of review
De novo for legal issues; clear error for factual findings; plain error for sentencing.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Michael Andre Campbell v. United States of America
Disposition
vacated

Topics

fourth amendmentsearch and seizureexclusionary rulesentencingsentencing guidelinescriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal proceduresentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the officer's reasonable suspicion dissipated before the frisk, requiring suppression of the firearm.
  2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) felon‑in‑possession statute is unconstitutional.
  3. Whether Campbell's prior Oklahoma armed‑robbery convictions qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA.

Holdings

  1. The officer's reasonable suspicion had not dissipated at the time of the frisk; the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
  2. The felon‑in‑possession statute is constitutional; the conviction is affirmed.
  3. The district court erred; Oklahoma armed robbery can be committed with reckless force and therefore does not satisfy the ACCA’s elements clause. The sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Key quotations

The officer’s reasonable suspicion had not dissipated by the time he frisked Campbell for weapons, the district court did not err in denying Campbell’s motion to suppress. (at 44–45)

Factual background

Officer Mullinix responded to a 911 call reporting a burglary. He encountered Campbell near the back porch, repeatedly ordered him to keep his hands up, and after a two‑minute exchange frisked Campbell, discovering a firearm in his waistband.

Procedural history

The district court denied Campbell's motion to suppress the firearm, convicted him of felon-in-possession, and sentenced him to 240 months under the ACCA. Campbell appealed the conviction, the constitutionality of the statute, and the sentencing calculation.

Remand instructions

Remand for resentencing.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…