United States v. Michael Herrold ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-11317      Document: 00513948243         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/11/2017
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 14-11317                                 FILED
    April 11, 2017
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                          Clerk
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    MICHAEL HERROLD,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:13-CR-225-1
    ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    On November 5, 2012, Dallas police pulled over Michael Herrold as part
    of a routine traffic stop. During the encounter, the officers observed a handgun
    in plain view. Because he was a convicted felon, Herrold’s possession of the
    firearm was illegal under 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g)(1), a charge to which he
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 14-11317       Document: 00513948243          Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/11/2017
    No. 14-11317
    subsequently pled guilty without a plea agreement. Under the enhanced
    penalty provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e), Herrold faced a statutory minimum of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
    Herrold’s previous felony offenses were: (1) possession of lysergic acid
    diethylamide (“LSD”) with intent to deliver, (2) burglary of a habitation, and
    (3) burglary of a building, all under Texas law. Herrold argued to the district
    court that none of his prior convictions qualified as predicate offenses under
    the ACCA. The district judge disagreed and sentenced Herrold to 211 months
    in prison. Without the enhancement, Herrold would have faced a maximum
    penalty of ten years. 1 He timely appealed his sentence.
    We held that all three of Herrold’s convictions qualified as ACCA
    predicates and affirmed his sentence. 2 Herrold appealed to the United States
    Supreme Court, which granted certiorari, vacated our judgment, and
    remanded for reconsideration in light of Mathis v. United States. 3 On remand,
    we will affirm.
    Herrold’s supplemental briefing on remand concedes that his conviction
    for possession of LSD with intent to deliver is unaffected by Mathis. His
    argument instead centers on his two prior burglary convictions. First, he
    argues that his conviction for burglary of a habitation is not an ACCA predicate
    because Mathis makes clear that burglary statutes like Texas’s, which define
    “habitation” to include recreational vehicles, 4 are broader than generic
    burglary. Second, he argues neither of his burglary convictions is an ACCA
    predicate because Mathis compels the conclusion that Texas’s burglary
    provision, Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a), is indivisible.
    1 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (a)(2).
    2 United States v. Herrold, 
    813 F.3d 595
     (5th Cir. 2016).
    3 Herrold v. United States, 
    137 S. Ct. 310
     (2016) (citing 
    136 S. Ct. 2243
     (2016)).
    4 Tex. Penal Code § 30.01(1).
    2
    Case: 14-11317       Document: 00513948243         Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/11/2017
    No. 14-11317
    Herrold’s arguments are foreclosed. In United States v. Uribe, this court
    held that Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a) remained divisible after Mathis. 5
    Herrold admits that Uribe forecloses his second argument. With respect to his
    first argument, Uribe concerned a conviction for Texas burglary of a habitation,
    and the court held that such a conviction continued to support a Sentencing
    Guidelines enhancement as generic burglary after Mathis, which means that
    Texas burglary of a habitation also continues to support an ACCA
    enhancement as generic burglary after Mathis. 6 This forecloses Herrold’s first
    argument.
    ****
    Upon remand, we find that Uribe mandates the result that we originally
    reached. 7 We again affirm the sentence of the district court.
    5 
    838 F.3d 667
    , 671 (5th Cir. 2016).
    6 
    Id.
    7 Uribe’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied without a poll, and the Supreme
    Court denied his petition for certiorari. Uribe v. United States, No. 16-7969, 
    2017 WL 661924
    (U.S. Mar. 20, 2017).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-11317

Judges: Higginbotham, Southwick, Higginson

Filed Date: 4/11/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024