UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AARON ALBERT GOODE

Background Aaron Albert Goode pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute drugs and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. His sentence was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act based on three prior convictions, including one for second-degree murder in North Carolina. Goode appealed, arguing the murder conviction did not qualify as a violent felony and that his firearm conviction was unconstitutional. The Government initially moved for summary affirmance on the merits but later attempted to dismiss the appeal based on Goode’s plea agreement waiver. The court’s reasoning The court first determined that the Government forfeited its right to assert the appeal waiver because it chose to litigate the merits of the ACCA challenge before raising the waiver issue. The court then addressed the merits, applying the categorical approach to North Carolina’s second-degree murder statute. The court found that the statute requires malice, which encompasses a level of extreme recklessness that is sufficiently culpable to satisfy the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause. The court rejected the argument that the statute was too broad, noting that the mens rea requirement ensures the offense involves the use of physical force. Because the Government elected to litigate the merits of this appeal first, its subsequent reliance on the appeal waiver was forfeited. United States v. Goode, 24-4019 (4th Cir. 2026) What it means going forward This decision reinforces that the Government must timely assert appeal waivers in plea agreements or risk forfeiting the right to enforce them. It also clarifies that North Carolina second-degree murder convictions categorically qualify as violent felonies for sentencing enhancements under federal law.