Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL NATHANIEL MCCALL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-22 Docket: 6:18-cr-00120-GAP-KRS-1 The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Daniel Nathaniel McCall’s conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Following a Supreme Court remand in light of *Erlinger v. United States*, which held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury, rather than a judge, to find that prior convictions occurred on separate occasions, the court addressed McCall’s claim that his sentence was unconstitutional because the district court made this finding without a jury. The court applied plain-error review because McCall failed to preserve the specific argument that a jury must make the “separate occasions” determination in the district court; he only objected to the factual sufficiency of the government’s evidence regarding the timing of his prior offenses. Under the plain-error standard, McCall was required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that a jury would have concluded he committed fewer than three qualifying predicate offenses. The court found this burden unmet because even if the two 1991 drug convictions were treated as occurring on the same occasion, McCall still possessed three other qualifying prior convictions: an aggravated assault conviction from 1996 and a possession-with-intent-to-sell conviction from 1998. Citing *Wooden v. United States*, the court noted that offenses occurring years apart are nearly always treated as separate occasions. Consequently, the court held that McCall could not show that an *Erlinger* error affected his substantial rights, as the remaining convictions alone satisfied the ACCA’s three-predicate requirement. The practical consequence is that McCall’s conviction and fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence remain in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.