United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60877

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Darius D. Wright, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:19-CR-94-2

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Darius D. Wright was arrested for being a felon in possession of a 

firearm after an officer discovered a shotgun in his car during a traffic stop. 

Wright filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the traffic 

stop, arguing that the stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The 

district court denied that motion. Afterwards, Wright entered an 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

August 16, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60877 Document: 00516433909 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2022
No. 21-60877

2

unconditional guilty plea, reserving no issues to raise on appeal. At 

sentencing, the district court found that Wright qualified as a “armed career 

criminal” within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 

meaning that Wright faced an imprisonment range of 15 years to life. The 

district court sentenced Wright to 204 months’ imprisonment, which was 16 

months above the Guidelines range.

On appeal, the parties raise three issues: (1) Whether the district court 

erred by denying Wright’s motion to suppress; (2) Whether the district court 

erred in finding that Wright was a career offender under ACCA; and (3) 

Whether Wright’s above-guidelines sentence was substantively 

unreasonable. 

The first issue is, as Wright concedes, waived. Wright entered a 

voluntary and unconditional guilty plea, which waived “all nonjurisdictional 

defects in the prior proceedings.” United States v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184, 186 

(5th Cir. 1999) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 766 (1970) and 

Busby v. Holman, 356 F.2d 75, 77 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1966)).

As for the second issue, the parties focus on whether the district court 

properly concluded that Wright had three or more convictions that occurred 

on “occasions different from one another,” as required by ACCA. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e)(1). Wright says he didn’t because his two prior burglary convictions 

occurred on the same day, and that the PSR’s statement that the second 

burglary occurred four days later is impossible because he was already in jail 

on that date. Because the burglaries were committed on the same night with 

the same co-defendant, and because the two properties were only .7 miles 

apart, Wright argues that the burglaries were not committed on different 

occasions, citing the Court’s recent decision in Wooden v. United States, 142 

S. Ct. 1063 (2022). The Government responds that even if Wright is correct 

that the PSR contains a “scrivener’s error” and the burglaries occurred on 

Case: 21-60877 Document: 00516433909 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2022
No. 21-60877

3

the same day, the offenses still qualified as “separate occasions” as defined 

by Wooden.

Both parties overlook a more fundamental issue: The district court 

relied on the PSR—and only the PSR—to find that Wright had the three 

requisite convictions. The Supreme Court held in Shepard v. United States, 

142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022), that district courts applying ACCA may only rely on 

“the statutory definition, charging document, written plea agreement, 

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

to which the defendant assented.” United States v. Fuller, 453 F.3d 274, 279 

(5th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Wooden, 142 S. Ct. 1063; see also 

United States v. Young, 809 F. App’x 203, 210 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) 

(same). “Thus, under Shepard, a district court is not permitted to rely on the 

PSR’s characterization of a defendant’s prior offense for enhancement 

purposes.” United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 274 (5th Cir. 2005). 

We have examined the record, and nothing in the charging document nor the 

plea colloquy speak to this issue. Because no Shepard-approved documents 

are conclusive as to whether the predicate ACCA offenses occurred on 

separate occasions, Wilson’ s sentence must be vacated. See Fuller, 453 F.3d 

at 279–80 (vacating the defendant’s conviction because the Shepardapproved materials were inconclusive); Young, 809 F. App’x at 210, 213 

(same).1

* * *

Wright’s conviction is AFFIRMED. We VACATE the sentence 

and REMAND for resentencing. 

1 Because we hold that the Government failed to proffer cognizable evidence 

proving that Wilson’s prior convictions occurred on separate occasions, we need not reach 

the issue of whether the above-guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Case: 21-60877 Document: 00516433909 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2022