Case ID: f-appx_197/html/0349-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Donovan Lemont BOOKMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-11053
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 7, 2006.
    
      Mark L. Nichols, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX,
    Jeanette Mercado, Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Donovan Lemont Bookman appeals the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Bookman renews his argument that the district court’s application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), was error because the Government did not prove that his prior burglary-of-a-habitation convictions occurred on different occasions with appropriate documentation, citing Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). The Government concedes the error.

We agree that, because the record does not disclose that the sequence of Book-man’s prior convictions was established by Shepard-appropriate material, the ACCA enhancement was error. See United States v. Fuller, 453 F.3d 274, 279-80 (5th Cir.2006). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for resentencing. Because we remand for resentencing on the Shepard violation, we do not address the remainder of Bookman’s arguments.

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.