The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and enhanced sentence of a convicted felon who illegally possessed firearms, upholding the application of federal sentencing enhancements in *United States v. Elias Phillip Francis* (4th Cir. 2026).
Elias Phillip Francis pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The case originated from a 2019 criminal proceeding in Charlotte, presided over by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
The central issue in Francis's appeal concerned the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a federal statute that mandates enhanced sentences for repeat offenders. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), defendants who possess firearms and have three or more prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses face a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in federal prison.
The district court determined that Francis had three prior convictions for violent felonies that were committed on occasions different from one another, thus qualifying him for the ACCA enhancement. Based on this finding, the court sentenced Francis to 180 months' imprisonment—exactly the mandatory minimum prison term required under the ACCA.
Francis challenged his sentence on appeal, arguing that it was improper for the district court to decide whether his three ACCA predicates were committed on different occasions. This argument touches on a complex area of federal sentencing law concerning which party—the judge or jury—should make certain factual determinations about prior convictions.
The timing of the Fourth Circuit's decision proved significant, as the court held the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's ruling in *Erlinger v. United States*, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). The *Erlinger* decision addressed similar questions about judicial versus jury fact-finding in ACCA cases, particularly regarding whether prior offenses occurred on separate occasions.
The Fourth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, Steven J. Agee, and G. Steven Richardson, issued an unpublished per curiam opinion on Jan. 15, 2026. The court's decision to issue an unpublished opinion indicates that the panel viewed the case as presenting straightforward application of existing law rather than novel legal questions requiring published precedent.
Per curiam opinions are issued when all judges on a panel agree and the case does not present complex legal issues requiring detailed analysis. Such opinions carry the same legal weight as signed opinions but typically address routine applications of established law.
Francis was represented by Steven T. Meier of Steven T. Meier, PLLC, based in Charlotte, North Carolina. The government was represented by U.S. Attorney Russ Ferguson and Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy E. Ray from the Office of the United States Attorney in Asheville, North Carolina.
The ACCA represents one of the federal government's primary tools for addressing repeat violent offenders who continue to possess firearms illegally. The statute recognizes that individuals with multiple violent felony convictions who continue to possess firearms pose heightened public safety risks, justifying enhanced penalties.
To qualify for ACCA enhancement, prosecutors must prove that a defendant has at least three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses, and that these convictions were for offenses committed on occasions different from one another. This "different occasions" requirement prevents the government from using multiple charges from a single criminal episode to trigger the enhancement.
The case reflects ongoing challenges in federal sentencing law regarding the proper allocation of fact-finding responsibilities between judges and juries. Following the Supreme Court's decision in *Apprendi v. New Jersey* (2000) and subsequent cases, courts have grappled with determining which sentencing factors must be found by juries rather than judges.
Francis's case was submitted to the Fourth Circuit on Dec. 18, 2025, and decided less than a month later, reflecting the relatively straightforward nature of the legal issues presented. The court's affirmance means Francis will serve the full 180-month sentence imposed by the district court.
The Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The court's unpublished opinions, while not binding precedent, provide guidance on how federal sentencing statutes apply in routine cases.
For defendants facing ACCA enhancements, the case underscores the importance of carefully examining the timing and circumstances of prior convictions. The "different occasions" requirement remains a critical element that can determine whether a defendant faces standard sentencing guidelines or the substantially higher mandatory minimum sentences under the ACCA.
The case also highlights the continued significance of the ACCA in federal criminal prosecutions involving firearms offenses, particularly as courts work to implement Supreme Court guidance on constitutional requirements for sentencing enhancements.