Opinion ID: 711145
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Enhancement of Dupaquier's Sentence Under Section 924(e)

Text: 23 Dupaquier was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. section 924(e)(1) (1988) (the Armed Career Criminal Act) which provides: 24 In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) ... and has three previous convictions ... for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall be ... imprisoned not less than fifteen years.... 25 Inasmuch as Dupaquier's conviction under section 922(g) must be reversed, his sentence under section 924(e) must necessarily be vacated as well. We therefore do not reach the question whether the three predicate convictions in Louisiana state court in 1979 were multiple convictions arising from multiple criminal transactions ... [to] be treated as separate convictions [for purposes of section 924(e)(1) ].... United States v. Herbert, 860 F.2d 620, 621-22 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1070, 109 S.Ct. 2074, 104 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), and reh'g denied, 492 U.S. 927, 109 S.Ct. 3268, 106 L.Ed.2d 613 (1989). 26 C. The Validity of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 922(g) and 924(c)(1) and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(d) 27 Dupaquier, relying on United States v. Lopez, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), argues that his convictions on all three counts must be reversed. In Lopez, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. section 922(q)(1)(A) (Supp. V 1993) (the Gun-Free Schools Act) exceeded the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. By failing to raise this issue below, however, Dupaquier is barred from raising it here for the first time unless the district court committed plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Plain error, including error with respect to purely legal questions, is synonymous with 'clear' or 'obvious'  error and,  '[a]t a minimum,' contemplates an error which was 'clear under current law' at the time of the trial. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-63 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Olano, 502 U.S. 725, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1777, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1266, 131 L.Ed.2d 145 (1995). Because Lopez was not yet decided at the time of Dupaquier's trial and sentencing, we cannot say that the district court committed plain error in failing to consider the validity of these statutes under the Commerce Clause. 28 We therefore reverse Dupaquier's conviction on count one and affirm on counts two and three. Because the sentences imposed by the district court on the three counts were intertwined, we vacate the sentences on counts two and three and remand for resentencing. 29 REVERSE in part, AFFIRM in part, and VACATE and REMAND for resentencing.