United States v. Christopher Hornyak, 805 F.3d 196

Hornyak pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Without enhancement the offense carries up to 10 years.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) imposes a 15‑year minimum if the defendant has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses; the ACCA’s “residual clause” defines some violent felonies as offenses that “otherwise involve[] conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another.”
At sentencing (pre‑Johnson), the district court found Hornyak had three qualifying priors: two serious drug offenses and a Texas conviction for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle (Tex. Penal Code § 38.04), and imposed 188 months’ imprisonment under the ACCA enhancement.
Hornyak objected at sentencing only to whether the Texas statute fit the residual clause (arguing it could be committed by fleeing on a bicycle); he did not challenge the residual clause’s constitutionality until appeal.
After this court affirmed, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, decided Johnson v. United States (holding the ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague), vacated, and remanded for reconsideration.
On remand, the Fifth Circuit reviewed Hornyak’s unpreserved constitutional challenge for plain error and concluded the Johnson error warranted vacatur and resentencing.

Issue	Hornyak's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Whether Hornyak’s sentence imposed under the ACCA residual clause must be vacated when the residual clause is later declared vague	The residual clause is void for vagueness; sentence under it should be vacated	Precedent foreclosed the challenge at sentencing; error not preserved	Held for Hornyak: vacate and remand for resentencing under plain error review because Johnson made the error clear, affected substantial rights, and correction is discretionary and warranted
Whether the sentencing error was "plain" and "clear or obvious" under plain error standard	Johnson established the residual clause is unconstitutional, so the error is plain	At sentencing precedent (e.g., Harrimon) supported treating the Texas offense as ACCA predicate; error was not obvious then	Held: Error was plain and obvious in light of Johnson decided while case was on direct appeal
Whether the error affected substantial rights and merits correction (seriousness to fairness, integrity, reputation)	The ACCA enhancement added 68 months above the lawful maximum, so substantial rights were affected and correction is necessary to preserve fairness	The government relied on binding circuit precedent and urged affirmance	Held: The increased 68‑month exposure satisfied substantial‑rights prong; exercising discretion to correct error was appropriate because allowing the enhanced term would undermine fairness and public confidence

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error review framework)
Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121 (2013) (clarifying when intervening decisions can make error plain on direct appeal)
United States v. Harrimon, 568 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (prior Fifth Circuit decision treating Texas evading‑arrest statute as ACCA predicate)
United States v. Palmer, 456 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006) (demonstrating substantial‑rights analysis where error added decades to sentence)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (guidance on categorical approach to predicate offenses)