Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roy Lee WELLS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-03
Citations: 684 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 15-51050 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roy Lee WELLS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 374–375

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roy Lee WELLS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-51050 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed April 3, 2017
Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Roy Lee Wells, Jr., Pro Se
Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roy Lee Wells, Jr., federal prisoner # 40052-080, was sentenced in 1988 under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 480 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Wells filed a motion invoking Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2563, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), which invalidated the ACCA's residual clause, and 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was denied, and Wells appealed;
Wells's brief requests a certificate of appealability (COA), which must issue for this court to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 142, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (§-2254 case). Wells's contention that Johnson applies retroactively and implicates the constitutionality of his conviction under the ACCA satisfies the threshold COA standard. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Nevertheless, we agree with the Government that Wells's claims are ultimately without merit in light of his three Texas controlled substance offenses. These convictions are ACCA predicates separate from residual clause offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii); United States v. Vickers, 540 F.3d 356, 363-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Further briefing is therefore unnecessary. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).
For these reasons, we GRANT Wells a COA; we GRANT the Government's motion for summary affirmance and AFFIRM; we DENY as unnecessary the Government's alternative request for additional time to file a brief; and we DENY Wells's motion to dismiss the indictment as moot.
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.