The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that all individuals have equal due process rights and that a violation of these rights constitutes a violation of 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 this movement, he joined the Aryan Liberation Movement. While Johnson was a member, he disclosed incriminating information to an undercover FBI agent. Johnson told the agent he manufactured weapons and explosives for the Aryan Liberation Movement and owned several other weapons. The Bureau also suspected Johnson of planning to engage in acts of terrorism against the Mexican consulate and liberal bookstores (Supreme Court). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In 2012, Johnson was arrested and admitted to possessing some of the weapons. Convicted felons are prohibited from purchasing and possessing weapons since Johnson did both, the government sought to sentence Johnson more harshly. Johnson pleads guilty and "the government sought a harsher sentence under the Armed Careers Criminal Act (ACAA), which imposes a heavier prison term on a defendant with three prior convictions for a 'violent crime' (Supreme Court). Johnson has two prior felonies, attempted simple robbery and simple theft. The government argued that Johnson's prior conviction for illegal possession of a short-barreled shotgun could be defined as a violent crime. The district court agreed and sentenced Johnson to a mandatory minimum term of 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Johnson fought to appeal his conviction. Johnson filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This court had previously upheld the residual clause in (James v. 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' decision. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that illegal possession of a short-barreled shotgun was classified as a violent crime under the residual clause. The residual clause requires the application of a “serious potential risk” which must be applied to an ordinary case of crime (Supreme Court). The government presented the idea that possession of a short-barreled shotgun could be considered a violent crime due to the perceived risk as well as the purpose of the weapon. The residual clause has caused division among lower federal courts because it is difficult to enforce consistently (Supreme Court). Johnson fought to prove that the definition of "violent crime" contained in the residual provision is unconstitutionally vague. Johnson filed another appeal after receiving the ruling from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The court's opinion referred to the characteristics relating to the residual clause. The residual clause leaves serious uncertainty about how to estimate the risk of 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 a judge to imagine how the idealized ordinary case of crime plays out).