Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10936/USCOURTS-ca5-19-10936-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Michael Sevier
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10936

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SEVIER,

Plaintiff-Appellee

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-69-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Michael Sevier appeals his sentence to 60 months of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release following his guilty plea 

conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession with intent to 

distribute a controlled substance. He contends that his prior Texas conviction 

for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon should not have been used to 

enhance his base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. He maintains

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10936 Document: 00515406000 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2020
No. 19-10936

that the Texas offense of aggravated assault does not meet the § 4B1.2(a) 

definition of crime of violence because the Texas offense is materially broader 

than the enumerated offense of aggravated assault and it lacks the use, 

attempted use, or threatened use of physical force as an element. He concedes 

that his argument is foreclosed under United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 

F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2007), but presents his argument for further review.

In Guillen-Alvarez, this court held that the Texas offense of aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon constitutes the enumerated offense of 

aggravated assault, and thus qualifies as a conviction for a crime of violence. 

Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d at 198-201. Thus, Sevier is correct that his argument 

is foreclosed and summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the 

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

2

Case: 19-10936 Document: 00515406000 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2020