The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a 15-year federal prison sentence for Marcus Venson, rejecting his challenge to an Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement that significantly increased his punishment for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Venson pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central, where Chief Judge Kristine Baker presided over the proceedings.
The key issue in the appeal centered on whether Venson qualified for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The ACCA requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison for defendants who have been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and have "three previous convictions for a violent felony committed on occasions different from one another," according to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
The district court found that Venson met this criteria and applied the ACCA enhancement, imposing the statutory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. This enhancement significantly increased Venson's potential sentence compared to the standard penalties for felon in possession charges.
On appeal, Venson challenged the application of the ACCA enhancement by arguing that his prior Arkansas state convictions should not qualify as "violent felonies" under federal law. Specifically, Venson contested whether his previous convictions for terroristic threatening, residential burglary, aggravated assault, and battery in the second degree met the federal definition of violent felonies.
However, the Eighth Circuit found Venson's argument unavailing. In an unpublished per curiam opinion filed Feb. 6, the three-judge panel noted that Venson "concedes that we have held to the contrary" regarding whether these specific Arkansas offenses qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA.
The court cited two recent Eighth Circuit precedents that directly addressed the issue. In *United States v. Myers* (8th Cir. 2019), the appeals court held that Arkansas terroristic threatening convictions qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA. Similarly, in *United States v. Sims* (8th Cir. 2019), the court determined that Arkansas residential burglary convictions also meet the federal violent felony standard.
These precedential decisions established binding authority within the Eighth Circuit that the types of Arkansas convictions on Venson's record do indeed qualify as violent felonies for purposes of ACCA enhancement. Given this existing precedent, Venson's challenge faced an uphill battle from the start.
The Armed Career Criminal Act was enacted by Congress to impose harsher sentences on repeat violent offenders who continue to possess firearms illegally. The law reflects a policy judgment that defendants with extensive criminal histories involving violent crimes pose heightened public safety risks when they unlawfully possess weapons.
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 occurred on separate occasions. The "occasions different from one another" requirement ensures that a defendant cannot receive enhanced punishment based solely on multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode.
Federal courts determine whether state law convictions qualify as ACCA predicates by examining the elements of the state offense and comparing them to the federal definition of violent felony. This analysis can be complex, as state criminal laws vary significantly across jurisdictions, and courts must carefully analyze statutory language and case law to make these determinations.
The Eighth Circuit's decision in Venson's case was submitted on Jan. 12, 2026, and filed on Feb. 6, 2026. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Smith, Erickson, and Kobes, who issued their ruling as an unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions typically address straightforward legal issues where existing precedent clearly governs the outcome. In this case, the court's brief treatment of Venson's arguments reflected the fact that circuit precedent had already resolved the core legal question about whether his Arkansas convictions qualified as violent felonies.
The affirmance of Venson's sentence demonstrates the continuing impact of the Armed Career Criminal Act in federal criminal prosecutions. For defendants with extensive violent criminal histories, ACCA enhancements can result in significantly longer prison terms that reflect their recidivist status.
Venson's case illustrates how federal sentencing enhancements work in practice and the limited options available to defendants challenging well-established circuit precedent. Unless the Supreme Court or the Eighth Circuit sitting en banc were to reconsider the classification of these Arkansas offenses, similar challenges are unlikely to succeed in future cases within the circuit's jurisdiction.