USA v. Jirron Curtis, No. 17-20801 (5th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 17-20801 Document: 00514858632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-20801 Summary Calendar FILED March 4, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JIRRON CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-253-2 Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jirron Curtis challenges the constitutionality of his guilty plea conviction for discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (COV), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), as well as the imposition of a mandatory 10-year sentence. He contends that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), which declared the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) unconstitutional, the similarly worded residual clause in 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-20801 Document: 00514858632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2019 No. 17-20801 § 924(c)(3)(B) is also unconstitutional. He further argues that his convictions for Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), do not qualify as predicate COVs under § 924(c)(3)(A). We do not address Curtis’s plea agreement’s waiver of appeal provision because the Government chose not to assert its applicability, instead moving for summary affirmance. Curtis raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 274 (5th Cir. 2017), in which we held that Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a COV under § 924(c)(3)(A). See United States v. Bowens, 907 F.3d 347, 353-54 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2018), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 22, 2019) (No. 18-7612). Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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.