Case ID: f-appx_620/html/0351-01.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. Michael Wayne DAVIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30130
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2015.
    Helina S. Dayries, Lyman Edgar Thornton, III, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard Mark Upton, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

In his direct appeal to this Court last year, the defendant argued that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and thus void. The defendant acknowledged that this argument was foreclosed by existing circuit precedent. See United States v. Gore, 636 F.3d 728, 742 (5th Cir.2011). We thus rejected his argument and affirmed the judgment.

The defendant then filed a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted after its decision in Johnson v. United States, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (June 26, 2015). The Supreme Court vacated our previous ruling and remanded for consideration in light of Johnson, which concluded that the residual clause is vague and thus void.

The Armed Career Criminal Act was applied to the defendant based on a finding that a prior conviction qualified under the residual clause. That resulted in application of a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence. Absent application of the Armed Career Criminal Act, the defendant faced a statutory maximum of ten years. In this direct appeal, we therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for resentencing in light of Johnson. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cíe. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.