143335P.pdf   02/23/2017  United States  v.  Wakinyan McArthur
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3335
                          and No:  14-3336
                          and No:  14-3367
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   PUBLISHED [Colloton, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Kelly, 
   Circuit Judge] 
   Criminal Case - Criminal Law. 
  
143335P.pdf   09/08/2016  United States  v.  Wakinyan McArthur
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3335
                          and No:  14-3336
                          and No:  14-3337
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to 
   support defendants' convictions for conspiracy to participate in 
   racketeering activity, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, 
   distribution of drugs, attempted murder or assault in aid of racketeering 
   and various firearms offenses; the jury instructions on defendant Morris's 
   charge of attempted murder and assault in aid of racketeering did not 
   constructively amend the indictment; the district court erred in 
   determining Morris's prior third-degree burglary convictions constituted 
   violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act, and his sentence is 
   vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings; the government's 
   motion to vacate one of defendant McArthur's two 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) 
   charges is granted as the Justice Department has opted, as a matter of 
   policy, to follow the view of other circuits that the imposition of 
   consecutive sentence under subsection 924(c) for using multiple weapons 
   during a single crime of violence would impinge on fundamental double 
   jeopardy principles; instructions on the remaining Section 924(c) against 
   McArthur were not erroneous under Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 
   1240 (2014); applying the "sentencing packaging doctrine," McArthur's 
   entire sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for further 
   proceedings; on remand the district court may alter the sentences on the 
   remaining counts without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause as a 
   defendant has no expectation of finality in his sentence until as appeal 
   is concluded.