Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0376-01.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. Detrick Ivre DOTSON, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-11508 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed July 20, 2017
    Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Detrick Ivre Dotson, Pro Se
    Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Detrick Ivre Dotson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and was sentenced to forty-two months of imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, arguing that, in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the district court erred in determining that his prior Texas conviction for aggravated robbery was a crime of violence for purposes of the sentencing guidelines. After Dotson filed his opening brief, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Beckles v. United States, — U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), in which the Court held that Johnson does not apply to the sentencing guidelines. See Beckles, 137 S.Ct. at 890. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance in light of Bedeles. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other things, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.