Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) Calculator
Determine ACCA applicability and the 15-year mandatory minimum under 18 USC §924(e).
Need Help Understanding Your Sentencing Range?
Our federal defense attorneys have decades of experience navigating the federal sentencing guidelines.
Call (212) 300-5196Get Personalized Legal Guidance
Our attorneys can analyze your specific situation and identify strategies to reduce your sentence.
Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) – What You Need to Know
Federal firearms charges carry some of the harshest penalties in the entire federal system. Determine ACCA applicability and the 15-year mandatory minimum under 18 USC §924(e).
If you’re facing firearms charges, here’s what you need to understand: 18 USC §924(c) imposes mandatory consecutive sentences – 5 years for possession, 7 for brandishing, 10 for discharge – and these sentences run on top of any other sentence. A second §924(c) conviction carries 25 years to life. This is serious. But there are defenses, there are arguments, and there are strategies that an experienced federal defense attorney can use to fight for a better outcome.
How Federal Firearms Sentencing Works
The first question in any §924(c) case is whether the predicate offense qualifies as a “crime of violence.” After the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. United States (2019), many offenses that previously served as §924(c) predicates no longer qualify. This is a major development – and it means that §924(c) charges can sometimes be challenged and defeated entirely. Many attorneys don’t even raise this argument. We always do.
For felon-in-possession cases under §922(g), the guideline calculation under §2K2.1 depends heavily on your prior convictions. If you have a prior “crime of violence” or “controlled substance offense,” the base offense level jumps significantly. But the definition of these terms has been subject to extensive litigation, and what counts as a qualifying prior varies by circuit. You need an attorney who stays current on this case law – because it changes frequently.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) adds another layer. If you have three qualifying predicate offenses, you face a 15-year mandatory minimum. But qualifying priors are determined using the categorical approach, which requires examining the elements of the prior offense – not the underlying facts. Many convictions that look like they qualify on the surface actually don’t when you apply the correct legal analysis.
What Most People Don’t Realize About Armed Career Criminal (ACCA)
The biggest thing people miss in firearms cases is that §924(c) charges are negotiable. The difference between pleading to a §924(c) count and having the firearm reflected only in a guideline enhancement can be the difference between 5+ years of mandatory consecutive time and a 2-level increase. This is where experienced plea negotiation makes all the difference.
For felon-in-possession cases, constructive possession is often more defensible than people realize. The government has to prove you had knowledge, access, and dominion over the firearm. If the gun was found in a shared residence or vehicle, that’s not automatic possession – and a suppression motion challenging the search can sometimes eliminate the evidence entirely.
Why You Need the Right Federal Defense Attorney
Federal firearms cases have mandatory minimums, consecutive sentencing requirements, and guideline calculations that can produce devastating results for defendants who don’t have experienced representation. You need an attorney who understands the post-Davis landscape, knows how to challenge predicate offenses, and can negotiate effectively with federal prosecutors to eliminate or reduce the most damaging charges.
At Federal Lawyers, we have handled every type of federal firearms case – from §924(c) charges to ACCA cases to felon-in-possession to NFA weapons. We know the law, we know the arguments, and we know how to fight for the best possible outcome. If you’re facing federal firearms charges, don’t wait – call us now.
Get Help Now – Risk Free Consultation
If you’re dealing with a situation involving armed career criminal (acca), you need an attorney who gets it – and has experience handling these exact types of cases. At Federal Lawyers, our criminal defense attorneys have over 50 years of combined experience handling federal cases nationwide. We’ve handled some of the toughest cases in the country, and we’re not afraid to fight for the best possible outcome.
When you reach out to our law firm, the process begins with a risk-free consultation. You can ask us anything, regardless of how long it takes. We are available 24/7 to help you. Call us at (212) 300-5196 – your first consultation is free, and completely confidential.
Disclaimer: This calculator provides estimates based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines. It does not constitute legal advice. Federal sentencing involves many factors not captured here – including judicial discretion, cooperation agreements, and individual case circumstances. Always consult with a qualified federal criminal defense attorney.
Frequently Asked Questions
How did Johnson v. United States reshape ACCA litigation, and what remains of the residual clause challenge landscape?
In Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), the Supreme Court struck down the ACCA’s residual clause (“otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”) as unconstitutionally vague. This decision was given retroactive effect in Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016), opening the floodgates for §2255 motions. Post-Johnson, ACCA predicate analysis focuses on two surviving prongs: the “elements clause” (force clause) requiring “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” and the enumerated offenses (burglary, arson, extortion, crimes involving use of explosives). The Supreme Court further tightened the elements clause in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), holding that offenses with a mens rea of recklessness cannot qualify as violent felonies under the elements clause. This eliminated reckless assault statutes as ACCA predicates in many jurisdictions.
How does the Taylor categorical approach apply to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as “burglary” under the ACCA?
Under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), the court employs a categorical approach: it compares the elements of the prior conviction statute to the generic federal definition rather than examining the defendant’s actual conduct. Generic burglary requires unlawful or unprivileged entry into a building or other structure with intent to commit a crime. If the state statute is broader than the generic definition — for example, by including vehicles, boats, or open land — the conviction does not categorically qualify. When the statute is “divisible” (listing alternative elements, not merely alternative means), the court applies the modified categorical approach under Descamps and Mathis, examining Shepard-approved documents. The practical stakes are enormous: the ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum where the standard §922(g) maximum is 15 years. Defense counsel must obtain the full record of each prior conviction and analyze each predicate separately.
What is the “occasion” requirement for ACCA predicates, and how can defense counsel challenge it?
The ACCA requires three prior convictions “committed on occasions different from one another.” 18 USC §924(e)(1). This temporal and spatial separation requirement can eliminate predicates when multiple convictions arose from a single criminal episode. Courts generally look at whether the offenses were separated by an intervening event, a change in location, or a meaningful passage of time. The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Hennessee, 932 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2019), held that near-simultaneous burglaries of adjacent structures could constitute a single occasion. Defense counsel should scrutinize the factual basis of each prior conviction, obtain police reports and court records, and argue that sequential but closely connected crimes constituted a single occasion, thereby reducing the predicate count below the required three.
