Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1498440.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:24:10+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. Cristina Walker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Shreveport, LA, for U.S. Danny Daniels, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
Danny Daniels, federal prisoner # 29395-179, seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied Daniels's collateral attack, but this court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the limited issue “whether he should be resentenced because one of the offenses upon which his career offender status was based has been invalidated.”1 We now affirm, holding that Daniels should not be resentenced.
As one of his two prior convictions, the district court counted Daniels's deferred adjudication from Texas in 2003 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Daniels pleaded guilty to the charge but received community supervision. There is no question that at the time it imposed sentence in 2005 that the district court lawfully included this diversionary disposition in its career-offender calculation.
Although we have never decided the precise issue presented in this case, we have in a different case foreshadowed the outcome here, noting: “[A case] in which a defendant received a diversionary disposition, such as deferred adjudication or assignment to a substance abuse program, and after the defendant completed the diversionary disposition the underlying offense was dismissed ․ [remains] a valid basis for a career offender designation.”10 That persuasive authority guides us here.
Ultimately, Daniels pleaded guilty in Texas court to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, for which he received deferred adjudication. This deferred adjudication was dismissed almost as a matter of course-and for reasons having nothing to do with “innocence or errors of law.”13 Daniels presents no evidence to the contrary. The law thus requires that Daniels-a recidivist offender-may not doubly benefit from the fortune of a lenient disposition in the Texas courts-a disposition subsequent to which he committed a serious federal crime. Notwithstanding its procedural dismissal, his Texas guilty plea may count toward Daniels's status as a career offender under the sentencing guidelines.
1. We have jurisdiction to address only the issue specified in the COA. To the extent that Daniels raises other issues, we do not address them. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151 (5th Cir.1997).
2. See United States v. Washington, 480 F.3d 309, 314-15 (5th Cir.2007) (describing Daniels's case in the context of his direct appeal).
3. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a). Daniels was sentenced under the 2003 version of the guidelines.
4. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1 (emphasis added).
5. See United States v. Joshua, 305 F.3d 352, 352-53 (5th Cir.2002).
6. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(f); see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2 cmt. n.3 (“The provisions of § 4A1.2 (Definitions and Instructions for Computing Criminal History) are applicable to the counting of convictions under § 4B1.1.”).
7. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2 cmt. n.9.
8. United States v. Nichols, 30 F.3d 35, 36 (5th Cir.1994).
9. United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 435 (5th Cir.2008).
10. United States v. Santana, 220 Fed.Appx. 283, 286 (5th Cir.2007) (unpublished).
11. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2 cmt. n.6.
12. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12.5(c). We further note that under Texas law, “upon conviction of a subsequent offense, the fact that the defendant had previously received community supervision with a deferred adjudication of guilt shall be admissible before the court or jury to be considered on the issue of penalty.” Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12.5(c)(1).
13. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2 cmt. n.10 (“A number of jurisdictions have various procedures pursuant to which previous convictions may be set aside or the defendant may be pardoned for reasons unrelated to innocence or errors of law, e.g., in order to restore civil rights or to remove the stigma associated with a criminal conviction. Sentences resulting from such convictions are to be counted.”).

References: v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 § 4
 v. 
 § 4
 § 4
 § 4
 § 4
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 art. 42
 art. 42
 § 4