Case ID: f-appx_329/html/0563-02.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. Raymond SNEED, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10912
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 28, 2009.
    Camille Elizabeth Sparks, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      John MacIntyre Nicholson, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Raymond Sneed appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Sneed argues that the district court erred by determining that he was an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Sneed maintains that neither his prior Texas conviction for evading arrest or detention using a vehicle nor his prior Texas conviction for assault on a public servant qualify as violent felony convictions under the ACCA.

As Sneed acknowledges, his prior convictions for robbery and aggravated assault counted as two violent felony convictions under the ACCA. See United States v. Davis, 487 F.3d 282, 287 (5th Cir.2007); United States v. Martinez, 962 F.2d 1161, 1168-69 (5th Cir.1992). Sneed’s prior conviction for evading arrest or detention using a vehicle is also a violent felony conviction under the ACCA. See United States v. Harrimon, 568 F.3d 531, 532-37 (5th Cir.2009). Accordingly, Sneed has three prior violent felony convictions, and the district court did not err by determining that Sneed was an armed career criminal under the ACCA. See § 924(e)(1). We do not reach Sneed’s argument that his prior conviction for assault on a public servant did not qualify as a violent felony conviction under the ACCA.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.