P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10434 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. EDW ARD GARC IA D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 4 : 0 7
- CR- 1 7 9
- ALL
B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * E dw ard G arcia (“ G arci a”) app eal s t h e 235
- m on t h sentence i m posed fo llo w i n g h i s j u rytri a lcon victi on of on e ch a rg e of be i n g a con victedf elon in possessi on of

a f i rearm un der 18 U
. S
. C
. § 922 ( g)
. G arci a argu es that t h e di st ri ct c o ur te r r e d i n s e nt e nc i ng hi m a s a n a r m e d career cri m i nal(“AC C” ) und e rt he Arm e d Car e e rCr i m i nalAc t(“AC CA” ) , 1 8 U
. S. C. § 9 24 . Gar c i a c o nt e nds t hatt he d i stri ct cou rt’ s ap p l i ca ti on o f th e A C C s en ten ce en h a n cem en t v i olatedh i s S i xth United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10434

2 Am e ndm e ntr i ght s a nd thatt he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n s upp o r to f t he e n h a n c e m e n tw a s n o ts u ff ic ie n t lyr e li a b l e to s u p p o r tth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s determ i n ationth at hi s prior burgl ar yco n v iction s o cc u rr e don d iff e re n t occ asi on s. The di s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n a nd a ppli c at i o n o f t he Se nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s a r e re v ie w e dd e n o v o , Un itedS ta tes v. W h ite , 46 5 F
. 3 d25 0 , 2 5 2 ( 5 th C i r . 2006) , w her eas t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s fac t ualf i n d i n gs ar e r evi ew ed f orc l ear e r r o r , Un i t ed S t ate s v. B arlow , 1 7 F .3 d8 5 , 8 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). S ect i on 924 ( e) subj ect s a defen da n tconvi ct ed of bei n g a fel on i n possess i on o f a f i r e ar m t o a m i ni m um se nt e nc e of 15 ye ar s i f

he ha s t hr e e pr i o rc o nvic t i o ns f o r“ a vi o l e ntfe l o ny o ra s e r i o us dr ug o f fe ns e , o rb o t h, c o m m i t t e d o n o c c as i o ns d i ff ere n t f rom on e a n oth er.” § 924 ( e) ( 1)
. I n t h e i n st an tcase, G arci a’ s s en t en ce w as e nhan c e d due t o hi s 19 82 , 19 85 , and 19 86 c o nvic t i o ns f o r bur gl ary. The G over n m e n t es ta b li sh e dG a rc ia ’ s p rio r b u rg la ryconvi cti on s w ere viol en tf el on i es th a t occu rred on sep a ra te occa sion s b y p rov i d i n g th e i n d i ctm en ts an dj u d gm en ts fo rt h e s e o f

fe n s e s . S ee B arlow , 17 F
. 3dat 89. G arci a then bore t h e bu rden of p r o v i n gt h a th i s p r i o rb u r g l a r yc o n v i c t i o ns di dn o ts u p p o r ta n ACC en h a n cem en t. G ar c i a di d notsust ai n hi s burde n. Specif i c al l y, w hi l e G ar c i a ass er t ed that t he AC C enha nc e m e ntw as i m pr o pe r be c aus e am bi guit y m i ghte xi s tr e ga r di ng t he da t e o f

hi s o f fe ns e s , G ar c i a ne i t he rde ni e d thathi s pr i o rb ur gl ar y c o nvic t i o ns occurred on dif

ferent oc casi on s n o r intr odu ced an y evi den ce th at hi s of fen ses occurred si m u l t an eou sly. A dd i t i on al l y, G arci a did not dis pu t e: (1) t h e exi st en ce o f hi s 1 98 2, 1 98 5 and1 98 6 c o nvic t i o ns f o r bur gl ar y; ( 2) t he s e pr i o rc o nvic t i o ns f or burgl ary w ere vi ol en tfelo n i es; or ( 3) hi s gui l t y pl eas i n t h e pri or burgl ary c onvi c t i ons w er e e nt er ed w i t h adequ at e pr oc edur als afeguar ds. Acc or di ngl y, G arci a di d no tde m o ns t r at e b y a pr e po nde r anc e o f t he e vi de nc e t hathi s pr i or bu rgl ary convic t i on s w ere i n vali d f or c on si derati on un d er th e A C C A
. Th u s, basedon the evi den ce presented, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n oterrw h en i tapp l i ed th e A C C en h a n cem en t.N o. 08- 10434

3 T o preserve hi s c l ai m s f or f u rt h er r evi ew , G arci a rai ses a n u m ber of i ssues th a t he con ced es a re foreclose dbypr ece d en t. F ir s t, G a r c iaa r g u e s th a t h is e n h a n c e ds e n te n c e u n d e r§ 9 2 4 (e ) is u n constit u t i on albecau se hi s pri or c on vi ct i on s and t h e dates of hi s pri or con victi on s ar e elem en ts of th e of fen se t h a t w ere n ot a l l eg ed i n the i n d i ctm en t, p r o v e n b e y o n dare a s o n a b le d o u b t t o aju r y , o ra d m itt e db yh i m . A s G a r c ia c o n c e d e s , th is a r g u m e n t is fo r e c lo s e db yth is co u r t’s ju r is p r u d e n c e . A ppre ndiv. New Jersey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ); W h ite , 4 6 5 F .3 da t 2 5 4 ; Uni t e d S t at e s v. G u evara , 4 0 8 F .3 d2 5 2 , 2 6 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . St o ne , 306 F. 3d 241, 2 4 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); Un itedS ta tes v. D a b eit , 2 3 1 F .3d9 7 9 , 9 8 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. A l m end arez- T orre s , 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 2 3 5 (1 9 9 8 ). G arci a al so argues t h at th e fact u albasi s f or th e i n t erst ate c om m erce e l e m e nto f

§ 9 22 ( g) w as i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o s upp o r thi s g ui l t y pl e a c o nvic t i o n a nd, al t er nat ively, that§ 922( g) i s uncons t i t ut i onal
. Th i s ar gum enti s f or ec l os ed by Un itedS ta tes v. D a ugh er ty , 2 6 4 F .3d5 1 3 , 5 1 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). Las t l y, G ar c i a ar gue s t hatt he e vi de nc e w as i ns uf f i c i e ntto es t ab l i s h t he m e ns re a e l e m e ntof

§ 922 ( g)
. Thi s co ur trej e c t e d t he s am e a r gum e nti n Un i t ed St at e s v . Sc hm i dt , 4 8 7 F .3d 2 5 3 , 2 5 4 -5 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.