USA v. Grover Elrod, No. 16-10355 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10355 Document: 00514547851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10355 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 10, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GROVER CLENDON ELROD, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15-CR-233-1 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Grover Clendon Elrod appeals the 180-month, mandatory-minimum sentence imposed pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e)(1). See Relying upon Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2247-57 (2016), he argues that the district court erred by Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-10355 Document: 00514547851 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2018 No. 16-10355 holding that his prior convictions under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a) constitute violent felonies. See § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Even if Elrod’s argument was not adequately raised in the district court, the sentence imposed constitutes plain error for the following reasons. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To demonstrate plain error, Elrod must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See id. If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. The imposition of Elrod’s ACCA sentence on the ground that his three § 30.02(a) convictions constitute violent felonies under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) is clearly erroneous. See United States v. Herrold, 883 F.3d 517, 536-37, 541 (5th Cir.) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 18, 2018) (No. 17-1445); see also Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997) (“[W]here the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal[,] it is enough that an error be ‘plain’ at the time of appellate consideration.”). As the presentence report recommended a guidelines range of 37-46 months of imprisonment, and because Elrod is subject to a statutory maximum sentence of only 10 years absent the ACCA enhancement, the error affects his substantial rights. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016). Since the error at issue resulted in a higher guidelines range, and as this case does not present any countervailing factors, we will exercise our discretion to correct the error. See Rosales-Mireles v. United States, No. 16– 9493, 2018 WL 3013806, at *9, *12 (June 18, 2018). VACATED and REMANDED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
