Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Dale BRUCE, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-11186 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 09/02/2016
    James Wesley Hendrix, Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Kevin Joel Page, Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Dale Bruce was convicted of one count of bank robbery and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (COV); the district court sentenced him to serve 176 months in prison and a two-year term of supervised release. Now, he argues that the district court should not have accepted his guilty plea as to the firearms charge, and this conviction should be vacated, because his bank robbery conviction does not qualify as a COV in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).

The issue whether a district court erred by accepting a guilty plea presents a factual question that we review under the clear error standard. United States v. Reasor, 418 F.3d 466, 470 (5th Cir.2005). Clear error occurs when, after reviewing all of the evidence, we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” United States v. Cordova-Soto, 804 F.3d 714, 718 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2507, 195 L.Ed.2d 840 (2016). In light of our prior jurisprudence, Bruce has not met this standard. See Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 601 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.