UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NATHANIEL DURHAM (23-5162); PHILLIP BARNES (23- 5173) - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NATHANIEL DURHAM (23-5162); PHILLIP BARNES (23- 5173)

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Aug 14, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Larry D. Simon, Louisville, Kentucky, for Nathaniel Durham. Britt M. Cobb, WILLEY & CHAMBERLAIN LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Phillip Barnes.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Amanda E. Gregory, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky for Appellee.

Judge(s): MOORE, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville

PER CURIAM. Following then-existing Sixth Circuit precedent, the district court determined Nathaniel Durham and Phillip Barnes were subject to the Armed Career Criminal Act’s mandatory minimum term of imprisonment because each had at least three prior qualifying convictions for offenses that occurred on different occasions. The Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Erlinger v. United States, however, made clear that a jury, not a judge, must determine whether crimes occurred on different occasions. 602 U.S. 821 (2024). In this appeal, we must determine whether the district court’s failure to submit the different-occasions question to a jury was harmless. Our answer differs between Defendants. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment as to Durham, VACATE Barnes’s sentence, and REMAND his case for further proceedings.

Attachments: