78 F.4th 707
5th Cir.2023Background
- March 29, 2020: gunshots reported near a Boys & Girls Club; witnesses and surveillance identified a dark pickup with distinctive markings (lighter driver-side door, bed cover, four rear-window stickers). Police located a matching truck and traced registration to Abedel S. Alkheqani.
- Officers observed a Middle Eastern male matching the suspect description leave the house; they stopped his vehicle, drew weapons, detained occupants, and smelled marijuana, leading to a probable-cause search and Alkheqani’s arrest for marijuana possession.
- While handcuffed in a squad car, Alkheqani repeatedly gave verbal consent and signed consent-to-search forms for his home and truck; officers found a .22 rifle in the master bedroom.
- Alkheqani was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress (arguing the traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion and consent was involuntary); the district court denied the motion. He was convicted at trial.
- At sentencing the PSR applied an ACCA enhancement based on four prior burglary convictions; the district court adopted the PSR and sentenced Alkheqani to 324 months. On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed the suppression ruling but reversed the ACCA enhancement because the district court relied solely on the PSR rather than Shepard‑approved documents, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop | Officers had particularized, corroborated information (witness descriptions, surveillance, matching stickers, registration linking truck to Alkheqani) supporting an investigatory stop. | Stop rested on generalized or conflicting descriptions and was too remote in time/place (three hours, <1 mile) to justify seizure. | Affirmed: totality of circumstances (distinctive vehicle features, ID photo match, temporal/geographic proximity) provided reasonable suspicion. |
| Voluntariness of consent to search home and truck | Consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances: no threats/promises, officers repeatedly informed Alkheqani he could refuse, he cooperated, spoke English fluently, asked questions about the form, and admitted the rifle. | Consent was coerced: he was in custody, stopped at gunpoint, handcuffed and surrounded by multiple officers; some deceptive statements by police undermined voluntariness. | Affirmed: factual findings (four factors favor voluntariness, one against, one neutral) not clearly erroneous—consent held voluntary. |
| Application of ACCA using PSR (Shepard/Wooden issue) | Government: Wooden permits multi‑factor inquiry and does not eliminate relying on PSR; PSR showed four prior burglaries on three dates so ACCA applies. | Alkheqani: Wooden does not abrogate Shepard; the district court erred by relying solely on the PSR rather than Shepard‑approved documents; available Shepard documents do not conclusively show the burglaries were on separate occasions. | Reversed: Wooden did not abrogate Shepard; district court erred by relying only on the PSR. Shepard‑approved documents in the record were not conclusive that predicates occurred on separate occasions—error affected substantial rights. Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits what documents a court may consult when determining the nature of prior convictions for enhancement purposes)
- Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) (defines "occasions different from one another" for ACCA as a multi‑factored inquiry considering time, place, and relation of offenses)
- United States v. Broca‑Martinez, 855 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2017) (reasonable‑suspicion standard for vehicle stops; must be particularized and objective)
- United States v. Alvarez, 40 F.4th 339 (5th Cir. 2022) (distinguishes stale or overly generic descriptions from sufficient bases for stops)
- United States v. Thomas, 997 F.3d 603 (5th Cir. 2021) (standard of review and totality‑of‑circumstances approach for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Garza‑Lopez, 410 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2005) (district courts may not rely solely on PSR characterizations to establish predicate offenses for enhancements)
- United States v. Jenkins, 487 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2007) (error to rely only on PSR for ACCA predicates; Shepard constraints explained)