The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that all people be afforded equal due process rights, and a violation of those rights violates the Constitution. The defendant, Johnson, argued that his convictions “should not be considered violent crimes and that the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague (Supreme Court).” In 2010, the FBI began investigating Samuel Johnson due to his involvement in the National Social Movement. After leaving that movement he joined the Aryan Liberation Movement. While Johnson was a member, he revealed incriminating information to an undercover FBI agent. Johnson told the agent that he made weapons and explosives for the Aryan Liberation Movement and owned many other weapons. The Bureau also suspected that Johnson had planned a terrorist action against the Mexican consulate and liberal bookstores (Supreme Court). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In 2012, Johnson was arrested and admitted to possessing some weapons. Convicted criminals are banned from purchasing and possessing guns since Johnson did both, the government sought to sentence Johnson more harshly. Johnson pleads guilty and “the government sought an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACAA), which imposes an enhanced prison sentence on a defendant with three prior convictions for a “violent crime” (Supreme Court).” Johnson had previously committed two felonies, attempted simple robbery and simple robbery. The government argued that Johnson's previous conviction for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle could be characterized as a violent crime. The District Court agreed and sentenced Johnson to a mandatory minimum of 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Law. Johnson fought to appeal his sentence. Johnson appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This court had previously upheld the residual clause in (James v. the United States, 550 US 192) and held that the clause was void for vagueness (Supreme Court). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts' ruling. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle is classified as a violent crime under the Residual Clause. The residual clause requires the application of “serious potential risk” to be applied to an ordinary crime case (Supreme Court). The Government presented the idea that possession of a short-barreled rifle could qualify as a violent crime due to the perceived risk and purpose of the weapon. The Residual Clause has resulted in division among lower federal courts because it is difficult to apply consistently (Supreme Court). Johnson fought to demonstrate that the definition of “violent crime” contained in the remaining provision is unconstitutionally vague. Johnson filed another appeal after receiving the ruling from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court's opinion referred to characteristics relating to the residual clause. The residual clause leaves serious uncertainty about how to estimate the risk of a crime, making it unconstitutionally vague. The residual clause also does not include actual facts or “statutory features of a case (Supreme Court).” The residual clause “requires the judge to imagine how the idealized ordinary crime case will subsequently develop (Supreme Court).” The Supreme Court had to analyze all the factors related to the vagueness of the Armed Career Criminal Act first).