USA v. Valencia, No. 22-50283 (5th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment. His sentence reflected the district court’s imposition of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), which is triggered when a Section 922(g) offender has three prior convictions for “violent felonies” or “serious drug offenses” that were “committed on occasions different from one another.” Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the ACCA enhancement violated his constitutional rights because the facts establishing that he committed his previous violent felonies on different occasions were not charged in the indictment and either admitted by him or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that the parties argue that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wooden v. United States instructs that the ACCA enhancement here was a constitutional error.1 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022). But in Wooden, the Court explicitly declined to address the issue that Defendant raised. Wooden is, therefore, “not directly on point” and thus does not “alter the binding nature” of Davis and White.

Download PDF

Case: 22-50283 Document: 00516738724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50283 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED May 4, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Samuel Valencia, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:21-CR-299-1 ______________________________ Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Samuel Valencia pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and he was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment. His sentence reflected the district court’s imposition of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), which is triggered when a § 922(g) offender has three prior convictions for “violent felon[ies]” or “serious drug offense[s]” that were “committed on occasions different from one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Case: 22-50283 Document: 00516738724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023 No. 22-50283 Valencia now appeals his sentence, arguing that the ACCA enhancement violated his constitutional rights because the facts establishing that he committed his previous violent felonies on different occasions were not charged in the indictment and either admitted by him or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Our review is de novo. United States v. White, 465 F.3d 250, 254 (5th Cir. 2006). As both parties acknowledge, our case law forecloses this argument. See United States v. Davis, 487 F.3d 282, 287-88 (5th Cir. 2007); White, 465 F.3d at 254; see also United States v. Eddins, 451 F. App’x 395, 397 (5th Cir. 2011) (rejecting, as foreclosed by White, the proposition that ACCA’s different-occasions requirement must be alleged in the indictment and either proven beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant). This precedent notwithstanding, the parties argue that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wooden v. United States instructs that the ACCA enhancement here was a constitutional error. 1 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022). But in Wooden, the Court explicitly declined to address the issue that Valencia raises. Id. at 1068 n.3. 2 Wooden is therefore “not directly on point” and thus does not “alter the binding nature” of Davis and White. United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2014). Valencia’s sentence is AFFIRMED. _____________________ 1 The Government agrees with Valencia’s contention that ACCA’s differentoccasions requirement must be charged in the indictment and either admitted by the defendant or found by a jury beyond reasonable doubt. But we are not bound by the Government’s concessions, see United States v. Castaneda, 740 F.3d 169, 171 (5th Cir. 2013), and, here, our rule of orderliness requires us to look past the concession. 2 The Court explained that two amici had briefed “another question arising from ACCA’s occasions clause: whether the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury, rather than a judge, resolve whether prior crimes occurred on a single occasion.” 142 S. Ct. at 1068 n.3. The Court did “not address that issue because [the petitioner] did not raise it.” Id. 2

Primary Holding

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling sentencing Defendant to 235 months imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.