# United States v. Michael James Brady

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 22, 1993 · 988 F.2d 664

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9484020

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael James BRADY, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 22, 1993
- **Citations:** 988 F.2d 664; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 5201; 1993 WL 76932
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Martin
- **Judges:** Merritt, Keith, Kennedy, Martin, Jones, Milburn, Guy, Nelson, Ryan, Boggs, Norris, Suhrheinrich, Siler, Batchelder, Lively
- **Cited by:** 98 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9484020

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that defendant’s prior armed robbery convictions were separate because they were “against different No. 15-6395 United States v. Southers Page 9 victims at different places and at distinctly different times,” where they were at distinct businesses and separated by appr…
- holding that defendant’s prior armed robbery convictions were separate because they were “against different victims at different places and at distinctly different times,” where they were at distinct businesses and separated by approximately forty-five minutes
- concluding that a defendant’s prior robbery convictions were separate offenses because, “although committed within less than an hour of each other,” the crimes were committed at “different times and places and against different victims”
- holding that two armed robberies of two different, neighboring businesses, committed by the defendant within thirty minutes of one another, were committed on “occasions different from one another” for purposes of the ACCA

## Opinion text

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I concur in the dissent of Judge Jones. I cannot join in an opinion which states, “we believe that offenses committed by a defendant at different times and places and against different victims, although committed within less than an hour of each other, are separate and distinct criminal episodes and that convictions for those crimes should be counted as separate predicate convictions under § 924(e)(1).” United States v. Brady, 914 F.2d 258 (6th Cir.1993) (en bane). If this is what Congress intended, this is what Congress should have said. Because Congress did not say clearly that was the statutory intent, I cannot join in the conclusion that there is no ambiguity in section 924(e)(1).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9484020. Public record. Not legal advice.