Court Opinion

ID: 9375315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:42.113333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.668602
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60062     Document: 00516653856         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/23/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                  No. 22-60062                              FILED
                                Summary Calendar                     February 23, 2023
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Andre Rene Williams,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Mississippi
                           USDC No. 3:19-CR-121-1

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Andre Rene Williams pleaded guilty to a single count of possession of
   a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Williams
   claims the district court erred in sentencing him to a mandatory minimum

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-60062     Document: 00516653856           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                    No. 22-60062

   term of 180 months’ imprisonment, as required by the Armed Career
   Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We affirm.
          Williams’ primary argument is that the facts of his prior convictions,
   which he did not admit in his plea, cannot be used against him via an ACCA
   enhancement unless submitted to a jury. This argument is foreclosed by
   Supreme Court precedent. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.
   224, 226–27 (1998). The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined invitations
   to revisit Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 488–
   90 (2000); Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111 n.1 (2013); James v.
   United States, 550 U.S. 192, 214 n.8 (2007).
          Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022), is not to the contrary.
   Williams reads it to forbid district courts from consulting the record to
   determine whether ACCA-predicate offenses occurred on separate
   occasions, as § 924(e) requires. But in reality, Wooden commands that district
   courts investigate the occasions of a defendant’s past criminal conduct. See
   Wooden, 142 S. Ct. at 1070–71 (directing courts to pursue a “multi-factored”
   analysis of a defendant’s § 924(e) occasions). The district court’s analysis in
   this case comported with Wooden and our precedent. See United States v.
   Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 n.3 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. White, 465 F.3d
   250, 254 (5th. Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
          In the alternative, Williams argues that the district court
   impermissibly relied on the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), among other
   documents, to substantiate its ACCA-related conclusions. See, e.g., Blue.
   Br. 54–55. True, precedent limits the types of documents that district courts
   may consult to determine which offenses are ACCA predicates. See Shephard
   v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005) (indicating courts may examine “the
   statutory definition, charging document, written plea agreement, transcript
   of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which

                                         2
Case: 22-60062     Document: 00516653856          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                   No. 22-60062

   the defendant assented.”); United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 274
   (5th Cir. 2005) (holding PSR alone cannot support enhancements that
   increase a defendant’s statutory maximum). But here, the district court did
   not rely on the PSR alone. It also relied on “the exhibits that have been
   produced by the government in this case.” ROA.152. That renders any error
   harmless, because the government’s exhibits contained acceptable
   documentation clearly establishing Williams’ ACCA predicates, including
   the relevant state-court charging documents and Williams’ plea to those
   charges. See Shephard, 544 U.S. at 16.
          AFFIRMED.

                                            3