Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-11339/USCOURTS-ca5-13-11339-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sol Sebastian Peoples
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11339

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SOL SEBASTIAN PEOPLES, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-3-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court correctly applied the statute in sentencing the 

appellant to the 180-month minimum for possessing a firearm after having 

been convicted of a felony, enhanced by his three previous convictions for 

violent felonies. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The three contentions appellant 

advances as error are rejected for the following reasons.

* 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

November 7, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-11339 Document: 00512830266 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2014
No. 13-11339

First, all three of the prior felonies were committed on occasions different 

from one another. The fact that a prior conviction was an element of the violent 

felonies, but was itself not a felony, has no bearing on the relevant convictions 

or the occasions of their commission.

Then, this court has previously held that the Texas assault statute, the 

offense for which appellant was convicted, constitutes a violent felony as 

defined by the Armed Career Criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). United 

States v. Espinoza, 733 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2013).

Finally, the decision of the district judge to sentence the appellant to 180 

months’ imprisonment instead of deducting from that statutory minimum a 

period of state pre-trial detainment, cannot be faulted, since its legal effect 

would have been questionable, as the judge recognized.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-11339 Document: 00512830266 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2014