125 F.4th 733
5th Cir.2025Background
- Paul Curry, Jr. pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- The Presentence Report (PSR) found Curry to be an Armed Career Criminal under the ACCA due to four Texas burglary convictions on separate occasions, leading to a 262-month sentence.
- Curry did not object to the PSR or its ACCA findings in district court and appealed, raising new constitutional and sentencing arguments.
- On appeal, Curry challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause and Second Amendment.
- He also argued that his ACCA enhancement was improper because a jury did not decide if his prior convictions were committed on separate occasions, as recently required by the Supreme Court in Erlinger v. United States.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed these claims, mostly for plain error, affirming based on precedent and the record evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Curry's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) (Commerce Clause) | Exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power | Well-settled, statute is constitutional | Argument foreclosed by precedent |
| Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) (Second Amendment) | Violates Second Amendment under Bruen | Statute constitutional as applied; precedent controls | Argument foreclosed by precedent |
| ACCA enhancement—jury determination | Sixth Amendment violated; jury must find separate occasions | Objection not properly preserved; record supports enhancement | Error in not giving issue to jury, but no impact on substantial rights |
| Reliance on PSR for ACCA enhancement | Sole reliance on PSR improper | Record as a whole, including supplemental docs, is sufficient | PSR and record sufficient; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024) (holding § 922(g)(1) constitutional as applied following Rahimi and Bruen)
- United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024) (Supreme Court Second Amendment guidance on disarmament laws)
- Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021) (plain-error review allows entire record consideration)
- Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) (analysis of ACCA’s separate occasions requirement)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless error review when appellate court assesses omission of jury element)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) (not all Sixth Amendment violations are structural errors)