Court Opinion

ID: 9556251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 18:01:06.29563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:42:02.419272
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10574         Document: 00516859719             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/16/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10574
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               August 16, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Lakeith Lynn Washington,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:19-CR-184-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          A superseding indictment charged Lakeith Lynn Washington with
   possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
   924(a)(2) (“Count 1”), and possession with intent to distribute
   methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (“Count 2").
   Washington pleaded guilty to both counts without a plea agreement. The

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10574       Document: 00516859719             Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                        No. 22-10574

   Presentence Report (“PSR”) applied the Armed Career Criminal Act’s
   (“ACCA”) sentence enhancement to Count 1 due to Washington’s three
   prior state-law convictions for burglaries (committed months or years apart).
   As a result, the statutory minimum sentence was fifteen years of
   imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The district court adopted the PSR
   and sentenced Washington to fifteen years for Count 1 and a concurrent term
   of 30 months for Count 2.              On appeal, Washington challenges the
   constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and the application of the ACCA sentence
   enhancement. We address each argument in turn. 1
           We begin with Washington’s contention that § 922(g)(1) violates the
   Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment. Because he failed to raise
   these constitutional arguments in the district court, we review for plain error.
   See United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly,
   Washington must demonstrate that the district court’s application of this
   statute contained an (1) error, (2) that was clear or obvious, and (3) affected
   his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
   If he does so, we have discretion to correct that error if it “seriously affects
   the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
   (quotation and alteration omitted). Washington has failed to make this
   showing as to either of his constitutional challenges.
           First, Washington urges that in enacting § 922(g)(1), Congress
   exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause.                      However, he
   concedes—and we agree—that this argument is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit
   precedent. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145–46 (5th Cir. 2013).
   Second, Washington contends that while this court has previously rejected

           _____________________
          1
            Washington does not contest the guilty plea or sentence as to Count 2, so we do
   not address it.

                                              2
Case: 22-10574      Document: 00516859719          Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                    No. 22-10574

   Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1), see, e.g., United States v.
   Darrington, 351 F.3d 632, 633–34 (5th Cir. 2003), an intervening Supreme
   Court decision draws this precedent into question, see N.Y. State Rifle &
   Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2125–30 (2022). To be sure, we recently
   relied on Bruen in invalidating a similar provision pertaining to persons
   subject to domestic violence restraining orders. See United States v. Rahimi,
   61 F.4th 443, 452, 461 (5th Cir.), cert. granted, No. 22-915, 2023 WL 4278450
   (June 30, 2023) (addressing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)). However, we have yet
   to address the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)—and, in fact, Rahimi suggests
   that Bruen’s logic may not extend to this provision. See id. at 451–52 (noting
   that Bruen refers to “law-abiding” citizens in discussing the Second
   Amendment’s scope). Accordingly, given this lack of binding authority, we
   conclude that Washington did not establish plain error. See United States v.
   McGavitt, 28 F.4th 571, 577 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 282 (2022).
          Finally, Washington argues that the district court’s application of the
   ACCA mandatory minimum sentence violated his Fifth and Sixth
   Amendment rights. Per Washington, whether his three convictions occurred
   on “occasions different from one another,” see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1),
   constituted a non-elemental fact that must have been alleged in the
   indictment or found by a jury. See Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063,
   1070–71 (2022) (addressing whether ten burglaries on the same day in the
   same facility constituted “different occasions” under § 924(e)(1)). The
   Government agrees with this point in its brief, but it argues that any error was
   harmless. However, we need not address the harmless error argument,
   because we recently affirmed that Wooden does not invalidate our precedent
   authorizing the sentencing judge to conduct § 924(e)(1)’s “different

                                          3
Case: 22-10574        Document: 00516859719             Page: 4      Date Filed: 08/16/2023

                                         No. 22-10574

   occasions” inquiry. See United States v. Valencia, 66 F.4th 1032, 1032–33 (5th
   Cir. 2023) (per curiam). Accordingly, this argument also fails. 2
                   AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           2
            Washington also concedes that this court’s precedent forecloses his argument
   that Texas burglary is not a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA enhancement. See
   United States v. Herrold, 941 F.3d 173, 175–77, 182 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc). Thus, we do
   not address it.

                                               4