Court Opinion

ID: 9399914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 18:00:50.608289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.859323
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10976        Document: 00516776232             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/06/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10976
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     June 6, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Mark Andre Green,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:21-CR-372-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Mark Andre Green appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty
   plea conviction for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. He
   argues the district court erred in assigning an enhanced base offense level

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10976       Document: 00516776232            Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                       No. 22-10976

   under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1) because his prior Texas conviction for
   aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was not a crime of violence. 1
          Relying on Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), Green
   argues that the Texas aggravated assault offense may be committed recklessly
   and, therefore, it is no longer a crime of violence under § 2K2.1(a)(1) and
   U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). Because he raised this argument in the district court,
   our review is de novo. See United States v. Puga-Yanez, 829 F.3d 317, 319 (5th
   Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
          In Borden, the Supreme Court held that an offense with a mens rea of
   recklessness cannot qualify as a violent felony under the elements clause of
   the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). 141 S. Ct. at
   1825. Borden, however, did not address recklessness in the context of
   enumerated offenses. See id. We have previously held that Texas aggravated
   assault is a crime of violence under the enumerated offense clause in U.S.S.G.
   § 2L1.2. United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 200–01 (5th Cir.
   2007). Indeed, the “crime of violence” definitions in § 2L1.2 and § 4B1.2
   are construed consistently for enumerated offenses. United States v. Rayo-
   Valdez, 302 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2002). Because Guillen-Alvarez did not
   define generic aggravated assault as requiring the use of force against another,
   it was not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden. See Borden,
   141 S. Ct. at 1825.
          Green also argues that, in amending § 4B1.2’s definition of crime of
   violence in 1989, the United States Sentencing Commission acted without
   authority when it abandoned the definition of crime of violence in 18 U.S.C.

          _____________________
          1
             Green characterizes his 2009 offense as aggravated assault by bodily injury.
   However, the state court documents reflect that he was convicted of aggravated assault
   with a deadly weapon.

                                                 2
Case: 22-10976        Document: 00516776232        Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                    No. 22-10976

   § 16, and he contends that the definition in the Guidelines is invalid to the
   extent it deviates from § 16. Although Green argued in the district court that
   his prior conviction was not a crime of violence in view of Borden, he did not
   argue that the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority when it
   abandoned the definition of crime of violence in § 16(a). Therefore, our
   review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Velasquez-Torrez, 609
   F.3d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). To prevail on plain error review,
   Green must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his
   substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If
   he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error
   but should do so only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
   reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets,
   and citation omitted).     “An error is not plain under current law if a
   defendant’s theory requires the extension of precedent.” United States v.
   Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 319 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted); see United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281, 291 (5th Cir. 2022).
          Green has not cited a decision of this court addressing this issue.
   Because his argument would require the extension of precedent, he has not
   shown that any error by the district court was clear or obvious. See Cabello,
   33 F.4th at 291. Therefore, he has not established plain error. See Puckett,
   556 U.S. at 135.
                                                                  AFFIRMED.

                                              3