UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 21-5811 │ v. │ │ HAROLD VERNON SMITH, aka Steven Charles Harmon, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville. No. 2:19-cr-00005-1—J. Ronnie Greer, District Judge.

Argued: January 25, 2023

Decided and Filed: June 9, 2023

Before: BUSH, LARSEN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Eric D. Reach, REACH & REACH, Johnson City, Tennessee, for Appellant. Luke A. McLaurin, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Eric D. Reach, REACH & REACH, Johnson City, Tennessee, for Appellant. Luke A. McLaurin, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. After police arrested Harold Smith with a loaded gun in his possession, he was charged with illegally possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon. Leading up to trial, he had the opportunity to stipulate his status as a felon and his knowledge of the same to preclude the government from introducing evidence of any of his prior felony No. 21-5811 United States v. Smith Page 2

convictions. But he declined. So the government introduced evidence of Smith’s eleven prior felony convictions at trial, and a jury convicted him on both charges. As Smith had three prior violent felony convictions, the district court sentenced him as an armed career criminal.

Smith raises two issues on appeal. First, he asks that we vacate his conviction and sentence based on the alleged unfairly prejudicial taint of evidence of his eleven prior felony convictions. We decline and affirm the district court on this issue. Smith then asks that we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing because his North Carolina conviction for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury should not qualify as a predicate violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Because the offense requires purposeful or knowing conduct, it is categorically a violent felony, so we affirm.

I.

When police learned from an informant that Smith was hiding in the woods and planned to flee the area, they prepared a ruse to arrest him for an outstanding parole violation. Police borrowed their informant’s truck, drove to a wooded area near an interstate exit in Bulls Gap, Tennessee, and then revved the engine and turned it off. That was the signal Smith was expecting, and he emerged from the woods. Officers then arrested and searched Smith as well as the surrounding area, and when they did, they found a loaded revolver in Smith’s waistband and a box of ammunition nearby.

Smith was charged with two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—one count for the firearm, and another for the ammunition. For each offense, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable