Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darryl B. McCULLOUGH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-21
Citations: 475 F. App'x 983
Docket Number: No. 10-11237
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darryl B. McCULLOUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 983–983

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darryl B. McCULLOUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-11237
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 2012.
Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kevin Joel Page, John MacIntyre Nicholson, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Darryl B. McCullough raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by Setser v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012), and United States v. Harrimon, 568 F.3d 531 (5th Cir.2009). In Setser, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3584 authorizes a district court to order a federal sentence to run consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence. Setser, 132 S.Ct. at 1466-73. In Sykes v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2267, 2277, 180 L.Ed.2d 60 (2011), the Supreme Court validated our holding in Harrimon, that the Texas offense of evading arrest or detention by use of a vehicle is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), by holding that a conviction under Indiana's felony vehicle flight law constituted a violent felony under the ACCA. Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.