USA v. Anderson

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	) 	CASE NO. 1:25-CR-489-1
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
v. 	)
)
JASHAUD ANDERSON 	) 	MEMORANDUM OF
) 	OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant. 	) 	[Resolving ECF No. 26]
The Court considers Defendant Jashaud Anderson’s Motion for a Pretrial Determination
(ECF No. 26) as to whether he is eligible for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”). See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). At a hearing, the Court heard the Parties on
the matter and issued the instant ruling. Minutes of Proceedings [Non-Document] 01/29/2026.
For the reasons herein and stated on the record, the Motion is procedurally granted and
substantively denied.
In 2025, Defendant was charged via superseding indictment for violating 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1) as a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.1 ECF No. 19. He has,
inter alia, three previous criminal convictions for burglary under Ohio Rev. Code §
1 Defendant is charged with the possession of a Glock 43X nine millimeter
semiautomatic pistol with ammunition and, on a separate occasion, fourteen rounds of
Ozkursan nine millimeter ammunition, twenty-nine rounds of Luger nine millimeter
ammunition, two rounds of Sellier & Bellot nine-by-nineteen millimeter ammunition, and
one round of Hornady nine millimeter ammunition. ECF Nos. 1 at PageID ##: 11–12, 19
at PageID #: 67.
Case: 1:25-cr-00489-BYP Doc #: 29 Filed: 01/30/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25-CR-489-1)
2
2911.12(A)(2).2 Defendant and the United States disagree over whether those burglary offenses
are “violent felonies” as contemplated by the ACCA. ECF Nos. 26, 27.
The Sixth Circuit has resolved this issue. In United States v. Butler, No. 1:18-CR-38,
2021 WL 5305929 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 15, 2021), the district court determined that burglary under
Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.12(A)(2) is a “violent felony” for ACCA purposes. On appeal,
defendant argued that § 2911.12(A)(2) is broader than “generic burglary” and thus cannot be an
ACCA predicate offense. United States v. Butler, 790 F. App'x 782 (6th Cir. 2019)
(unpublished).3 The Sixth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court:
Butler contends that [Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.12(A)(2)] is too broad
to fall within the scope of generic burglary under the [ACCA]. But
we have already rejected that same argument with respect to a
materially identical burglary offense under Ohio law. See Greer v.
United States, 938 F.3d 766, 771–72 (6th Cir. 2019). What matters,
we held, is that the statute limited its reach to “instances where the
risk of violence is the greatest.” Id. at 777. Those same limits apply
here. Thus, the district court correctly held that Butler's conviction
under § 2911.12(A)(2) was a violent felony under the Armed Career
Criminal Act.
2 See Ohio v. Anderson, No. CR-12-563961 (Ohio Com. Pl., Cuyahoga County Jun.
22, 2012); Ohio v. Anderson, No. CR-12-560556 (Ohio Com. Pl., Cuyahoga County Mar.
10, 2012); Ohio v. Anderson, CR-20-647658 (Ohio Com. Pl., Cuyahoga County Jan. 11,
2020).
3 To be sure, “unpublished opinions carry no precedential weight . . . and have no binding
effect on anyone other than the parties to the action.” Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393, 405 (6th
Cir. 2011) (quoting Sheets v. Moore, 97 F.3d 164, 167 (6th Cir.1996)) (cleaned up). The absence
of binding authority, however, does not equal the absence of relevance. While the Court’s Local
Rules are silent on the subject, the Sixth Circuit permits citation of unpublished opinions, orders,
judgments, and other written dispositions. See 6 Cir. R. 32.1. As a practical matter, unpublished
opinions are invaluable where no published opinions provide clarity. See Lafler, 657 F.3d at 405
(noting that while unpublished decisions in the Sixth Circuit are not binding, their reasoning may
be instructive or helpful); see also Combs v. Int'l Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 568, 593 (6th Cir. 2004)
(“Although [case] is an unpublished opinion, its reasoning is instructive.”); Boyd v. Yukins, 99
Fed.Appx. 699, 703 (6th Cir.2004) (“Our unpublished case . . . is instructive.”). Accordingly,
while Butler is binding on neither the Court nor subsequent Sixth Circuit panels, its persuasive
reasoning and factual similarities qualify it for application herein.
Case: 1:25-cr-00489-BYP Doc #: 29 Filed: 01/30/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25-CR-489-1)
3
Id. at 785 (emphasis added).
By that authority, Defendant’s three burglary convictions under Ohio Rev. Code §
2911.12(A)(2) are “violent felonies” under the ACCA, thereby subjecting him to the enhanced
sentencing provisions therein To the extent Defendant seeks a pretrial determination as to his
armed career criminal status, the Moton is granted. To the extent he seeks a determination in his
favor, the Motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 30, 2026 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cr-00489-BYP Doc #: 29 Filed: 01/30/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>