### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11734 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ANTHONY LAMOND THOMAS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CR

- 441

- 1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anthony Lamond Thomas appeals the 180

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possessing with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 2 1 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) , (b)(1)(C) and possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) (1) , 924(e) . Thomas argues that the district court erred by sentencing him pursuant to the provisions of the Armed Criminal Career Act (ACCA ), § 924(e)(1), based on his two prior

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 16, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11734 Document: 00514196212 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2017No. 16

- 11734

2 convictions for possession with intent to deliver cocaine, one prior convict ion for delivery of cocaine, and one prior conviction for robbery.
We r eview de novo the district court’s legal application of the ACCA. See United States v. Hawley , 516 F.3d 264, 269 (5th Cir. 2008). Under the ACCA, a defendant, like Thomas, who is c onvicted of possession of a firearm by a felon pursuant to § 922(g) is subject to enhanced punishment if he has at least three prior convictions for a “serious drug offense” or a “violent felony” committed on different occasions. § 924(e)(1).
Thomas argu es that his three prior drug convictions under Section 481.112 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, which prohibits the knowing manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to d eliver a controlled substance, are not “serious drug offenses” for purposes of the ACCA because the Texas statute can be violated by an offer to sell , which is not included in the ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense

. ” He recognizes that we rejected this argument in United States v. Vickers , 540 F.3d 356, 364

- 65 (5th Cir. 2008), but he contends that Vickers has been undermined by Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2559, 2563 (2015), and Torres v. Lynch , 136 S. Ct

. 1619 (2016). The ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense,” § 924(e)(2)(A), was not
at issue in either Johnson or Torres , and t hose cases do not represent an intervening change in the law regarding whether the Texas dru g offenses at issue qualify as serious drug offenses under the ACCA and do not

–– either explicitly or implicitly

–– overrul e our prior precedent. See V ickers , 540 F.3d at
364

- 66; see also United States v. Winbush , 407 F.3d 703, 706

- 08 (5th Cir. 2005). Thomas’s reliance on United States v. Tanksley , 848 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.), supplemented by 854 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2017), and United States v. Renteria

- Case: 16-11734 Document: 00514196212 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2017No. 16

- 11734

3 Martinez , 847 F.3d 297 (2017), pet. for cert. filed (June 20, 2017) (No. 16

- 9608),
is u navailing for the same reason. Accordingly, because Thomas’s three prior drug convictions are “serious drug offenses,” t he district court did not err in sentencing Thomas under the ACCA based on those convictions

. In light of this , we need not address whether Thomas’s Texas conviction for robbery is a violent felony under the ACCA. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-11734 Document: 00514196212 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/16/2017