United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-60062

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Andre Rene Williams, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:19-CR-121-1 

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Andre Rene Williams pleaded guilty to a single count of possession of 

a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Williams 

claims the district court erred in sentencing him to a mandatory minimum 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60062 Document: 00516653856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
No. 22-60062

2

term of 180 months’ imprisonment, as required by the Armed Career 

Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We affirm. 

Williams’ primary argument is that the facts of his prior convictions, 

which he did not admit in his plea, cannot be used against him via an ACCA 

enhancement unless submitted to a jury. This argument is foreclosed by 

Supreme Court precedent. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 

224, 226–27 (1998). The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined invitations 

to revisit Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 488–

90 (2000); Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111 n.1 (2013); James v. 

United States, 550 U.S. 192, 214 n.8 (2007). 

Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022), is not to the contrary. 

Williams reads it to forbid district courts from consulting the record to 

determine whether ACCA-predicate offenses occurred on separate 

occasions, as § 924(e) requires. But in reality, Wooden commands that district 

courts investigate the occasions of a defendant’s past criminal conduct. See

Wooden, 142 S. Ct. at 1070–71 (directing courts to pursue a “multi-factored” 

analysis of a defendant’s § 924(e) occasions). The district court’s analysis in 

this case comported with Wooden and our precedent. See United States v. 

Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 n.3 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. White, 465 F.3d 

250, 254 (5th. Cir. 2006) (per curiam).

In the alternative, Williams argues that the district court

impermissibly relied on the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), among other 

documents, to substantiate its ACCA-related conclusions. See, e.g., Blue. 

Br. 54–55. True, precedent limits the types of documents that district courts 

may consult to determine which offenses are ACCA predicates. See Shephard 

v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005) (indicating courts may examine “the 

statutory definition, charging document, written plea agreement, transcript 

of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which 

Case: 22-60062 Document: 00516653856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
No. 22-60062

3

the defendant assented.”); United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 274 

(5th Cir. 2005) (holding PSR alone cannot support enhancements that 

increase a defendant’s statutory maximum). But here, the district court did 

not rely on the PSR alone. It also relied on “the exhibits that have been 

produced by the government in this case.” ROA.152. That renders any error 

harmless, because the government’s exhibits contained acceptable 

documentation clearly establishing Williams’ ACCA predicates, including 

the relevant state-court charging documents and Williams’ plea to those 

charges. See Shephard, 544 U.S. at 16. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-60062 Document: 00516653856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2023