United States v. Powell ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 18-11050     Document: 00516198440          Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/10/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    February 10, 2022
    No. 18-11050                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
    versus
    Jeremy Glenn Powell,
    Defendant—Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:17-CR-511-1
    ON REMAND FROM
    THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    Before King, Graves, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Jeremy Glenn Powell pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a
    firearm in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1). He was sentenced to 120-
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 18-11050        Document: 00516198440              Page: 2       Date Filed: 02/10/2022
    No. 18-11050
    months imprisonment and three-years supervised release under 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (a)(2). On appeal, he argued that the district court had incorrectly
    calculated his guidelines range and that the district court abused its discretion
    by deciding to run his sentence consecutively to the undischarged portion of
    his prior federal sentence. The Government cross-appealed, arguing that the
    district court erred by deciding that Powell’s previous convictions for
    burglary and robbery were not violent felonies under the Armed Career
    Criminal Act (ACCA), 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e). If a defendant “has three
    previous convictions . . . for a violent felony” then he or she is subject to a
    minimum 15-year term of imprisonment. 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1). We noted
    that, after the district court’s sentencing, our decision in United States v.
    Burris, 
    920 F.3d 942
     (5th Cir. 2019), vacated and remanded, 
    141 S. Ct. 2781
    (2021), held that both Texas robbery-by-injury and robbery-by-threat were
    violent felonies for ACCA purposes. 1 We therefore vacated Powell’s non-
    ACCA sentence and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing
    in light of Burris. United States v. Powell, 785 F. App’x 227, 227 (5th Cir.
    2019) (per curiam). Powell petitioned the United States Supreme Court for
    a writ of certiorari.
    While his petition was pending, the Supreme Court decided in Borden
    v. United States that a crime capable of commission with “a less culpable
    mental state than purpose or knowledge,” such as “recklessness,” cannot
    qualify as a “violent felony” under 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(2)(B) of the ACCA.
    Borden v. United States, 
    141 S. Ct. 1817
    , 1821–22, 1825 (2021) (plurality
    opinion) (noting that reckless conduct is not aimed “against the person of
    another” as the elements clause requires); 
    id. at 1835
     (Thomas, J., concurring
    1
    Although not discussed in our opinion, our court additionally decided in United
    States v. Herrold, 
    941 F.3d 173
     (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc), that Texas burglary was a violent
    felony under the ACCA. That case was also decided after the district court’s sentencing.
    2
    Case: 18-11050        Document: 00516198440             Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/10/2022
    No. 18-11050
    in the judgment) (noting that reckless conduct does not involve the “use of
    physical force” as the elements clause requires). After Borden, the Court
    granted Powell’s petition, vacated our judgment, and remanded “for further
    consideration in light of Borden.” Powell v. United States, 
    141 S. Ct. 2780
    , 2781
    (2021).
    Pre-Borden, Powell had five convictions which could qualify as violent
    felonies under the ACCA: one Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation,
    one Texas conviction for aggravated robbery-by-threat with a deadly weapon,
    one Texas conviction for robbery-by-threat, and two Texas convictions for
    robbery-by-injury. Post-Borden, it is clear that one of Powell’s convictions
    qualifies as a violent felony (his burglary conviction 2) and two of his
    convictions do not (his two robbery-by-injury convictions, as robbery-by-
    injury can be committed recklessly, Tex. Penal Code § 29.02(a)(1)).
    Therefore, Powell’s case turns on whether his two convictions involving
    robbery-by-threat are still violent felonies for ACCA purposes.
    They are. That conclusion follows from our recent decision in United
    States v. Garrett, —F.4th—, 
    2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2184
     (5th Cir. Jan. 25,
    2022). There, we considered whether the Texas simple robbery statute
    “create[d] a single, indivisible crime” which could be committed recklessly
    or whether the statute is “divisible into separate crimes” including robbery-
    by-threat, which can only be committed intentionally or knowingly and
    “cannot be committed through mere recklessness.” 
    Id. at *4
    . That
    distinction makes all the difference when determining whether a conviction
    qualifies as a violent crime under the ACCA. When deciding whether a
    2
    Burglary is considered a violent felony under the enumerated offenses clause of
    the ACCA, 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(2)(B)(ii), which was not at issue in Borden. Our precedent
    in Herrold therefore continues to control, and Powell’s burglary conviction continues to
    qualify under that case’s holding.
    3
    Case: 18-11050      Document: 00516198440           Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/10/2022
    No. 18-11050
    crime is a violent one for ACCA purposes, we normally use what is called
    the “categorical approach” and consider “whether the statute itself
    necessarily and invariably requires the ‘use . . . or threatened use of physical
    force.’” 
    Id. at *5
     (quoting Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1822). “[A]ny crime that can
    be committed without the use of force cannot serve as an ACCA predicate
    under the force clause, regardless of whether the actual facts of the case at
    hand indicate that force was used.” Id. at *5. And Borden teaches that a crime
    that can be committed recklessly does not satisfy the “use of force”
    requirement of the ACCA. Borden, 141 S. Ct. at 1834. Since robbery-by-
    injury can be committed recklessly, if the statute is indivisible, then no Texas
    robbery conviction could serve as a qualifying conviction under the ACCA.
    However, if the Texas simple robbery statute is divisible, then it “may
    create multiple, distinct crimes, some violent, some non-violent.” Garrett,
    
    2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2184
    , at *5. Specifically, since robbery-by-threat
    cannot be committed recklessly, it could still constitute a violent crime for
    ACCA purposes even if robbery-by-injury could not. For divisible statutes,
    we therefore use a modified version of the categorical approach that “look[s]
    at documents in the record, such as an indictment, jury instructions, or a plea
    colloquy, for the limited purpose of determining the specific crime under the
    statute for which the defendant was charged and convicted.” 
    Id.
     at *5–6
    (citing Mathis v. United States, 
    136 S. Ct. 2243
    , 2249 (2016)). If those
    documents show that the defendant was convicted of a specific crime within
    the divisible statute that requires a mental state beyond recklessness, and
    thus can be an ACCA predicate, then the conviction qualifies under the
    ACCA.
    Our court in Garrett held “that the Texas simple robbery statute is
    divisible.” Garrett, 
    2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2184
    , at *11. We also held that
    “[r]obbery-by-threat is a violent felony because intentionally or knowingly
    threatening or placing another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death
    4
    Case: 18-11050         Document: 00516198440               Page: 5      Date Filed: 02/10/2022
    No. 18-11050
    plainly constitutes the ‘threatened use of force’ under the ACCA.” 
    Id. at *12
     (quoting 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(2)(B)(i)).
    In Powell’s case, as in Garrett, “[g]iven this conclusion, the remainder
    of our analysis may be addressed in short order.” 
    Id. at *11
    . We apply the
    modified categorical approach and look to the indictments and plea
    colloquies to determine the exact crimes of conviction. The judicial
    confession when Powell pleaded guilty to robbery in 2001 and the
    corresponding indictment make clear that he pleaded guilty to robbery-by-
    threat. And the judicial confession and indictment for Powell’s 2008
    conviction for aggravated robbery make clear that he was charged with and
    pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery-by-threat while using or exhibiting a
    deadly weapon. 3 Neither crime can be committed recklessly, and both are
    violent crimes under the ACCA.
    Therefore, combined with his 1995 conviction for burglary, Powell has
    at least three convictions that qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA
    and must be resentenced. 4
    3
    Our court has also previously held in United States v. Lerma, 
    877 F.3d 628
     (5th
    Cir. 2017), that the Texas aggravated robbery statute is divisible, 
    id. at 634
    , and that “a
    crime under Texas Penal Code § 29.03(a)(2), that is, threatening someone with imminent
    bodily injury or death, or placing someone in fear of such, while using or exhibiting a deadly
    weapon in the course of committing theft . . . has an element the threatened use of physical
    force against the person of another” and thus is a violent felony for ACCA purposes, id. at
    636. Nothing in Borden has disturbed either holding, since the form of aggravated robbery
    considered in Lerma cannot be committed recklessly. In addition, Lerma noted that
    aggravated robbery incorporates simple robbery as an element (e.g., it “requires that a
    defendant commit robbery and meet one of several other requirements.”). Id. at 633.
    Therefore, Lerma and Garrett together show that robbery-by-threat, whether simple or
    aggravated, is a violent felony under the ACCA.
    4
    As we are vacating Powell’s entire sentence and remanding for resentencing, we
    do not address Powell’s arguments related to alleged sentencing errors. United States v.
    Akpan, 
    407 F.3d 360
    , 377 n.62 (5th Cir. 2005).
    5
    Case: 18-11050    Document: 00516198440         Page: 6   Date Filed: 02/10/2022
    No. 18-11050
    Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we VACATE Powell’s
    sentence and REMAND the case to the district court for resentencing.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-11050

Filed Date: 2/10/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/11/2022