Sentencing; Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA); Whether defendant’s prior drug offenses qualified as “separate” predicate offenses occurring on three separate “occasions”; 18 USC § 924(e)(1); Whether the Fifth & Sixth Amendments require the government to charge the separateness of the ACCA predicates in an indictment & prove the supporting facts to a jury; Erlinger v United States; Apprendi v New Jersey; Alleyne v United States; Conditions of supervised release; § 3563(b)(22); The “risk notification” condition; USSG § 5D1.3(c)(12); Whether the condition’s language was “vague”; Whether it was an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority

In an amended opinion (see e-Journal # 79971 in the 8/17/23 edition for the original opinion), the court reconsidered whether the district court erred in enhancing defendant-Campbell’s sentence by judicially determining whether his drug offenses were committed on three separate “occasions.” Under the recent case of Erlinger, it held that this was a matter for the jury. But it also held that the error was harmless. Thus, it again affirmed his sentence. Campbell challenged the district court’s conclusion that the prior offenses were committed on three separate “occasions,” which resulted in three ACCA predicate offenses. Erlinger settled “whether the district court violated the principles of Apprendi and Alleyne in sentencing Campbell[.]” Thus, the court turned to the issue of the “appropriate remedy for that underlying constitutional error.” As the violation, “a sentencing enhancement resulting from judicial findings concerning ACCA’s occasions clause—is part and parcel with the errors in Apprendi and Alleyne,” the court joined its sister circuits by holding that “the failure to submit the occasions clause question to the jury is subject to harmless error review.” It concluded that it could “‘confidently say,’ based on the ‘whole record,’ that the government has shown that the constitutional error at issue here was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’”