United States v. Eddie Lipscomb, 982 F.3d 927

In 2007 Eddie Lipscomb (nine prior felonies) pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) after a Dallas arrest for a sawed-off shotgun.
At sentencing the district court applied the ACCA, finding three prior violent felonies and imposing a 20-year sentence (between the ACCA 15-year minimum and the guidelines range); this was affirmed on direct appeal.
After Johnson v. United States, Lipscomb filed a § 2255 motion arguing the ACCA residual clause was invalid and his prior convictions no longer produced ACCA status; the district court granted relief, reduced his sentence to 10 years, and released him on time served.
The Government appealed. Subsequent Fifth Circuit decisions (notably Burris and Herrold) held Texas robbery and burglary qualify as ACCA violent felonies, undermining the district court’s § 2255 ruling.
Lipscomb argued the Government was estopped from appeal (due to his re-incarceration on supervised-release violations), asked for a stay pending Supreme Court resolution of related issues, and requested a remand rather than a direct reinstatement.
The Fifth Circuit concluded the district court erred, rejected Lipscomb’s estoppel/fairness/remand arguments, vacated the § 2255 order, and directed reinstatement of the original judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Do Lipscomb's prior convictions qualify as ACCA violent felonies?	Gov't: Texas robbery and burglary count as violent felonies under ACCA elements clauses.	Lipscomb: Post-Johnson, district court found robbery did not meet § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) elements requirement.	Held: Robbery and burglary qualify under Burris and Herrold; district court erred.
2) Is the Government estopped from appealing because it secured Lipscomb's reincarceration?	Gov't: Not estopped; actions were responses to Lipscomb's supervised-release violations.	Lipscomb: Gov't should be estopped from appeal due to remedial actions that led to reincarceration.	Held: Estoppel inappropriate; Lipscomb's misconduct defeats equitable relief.
3) Should the court stay the appeal pending Supreme Court review (fairness)?	Gov't: Opposed; Fifth Circuit precedent now controls and issues are settled.	Lipscomb: Fairness and prior stays warrant another stay while Supreme Court considers related cases.	Held: Denied; court bound to follow its precedent (Burris/Herrold) and will not delay further.
4) If reversed, should the court remand for the district court to resolve sentencing and revocations?	Gov't: Seeks reinstatement of original judgment.	Lipscomb: Requests remand so district court can address sentence and revocation judgments together.	Held: Court reversed the § 2255 grant and directed reinstatement of original judgment; revocations remain for the district court.

United States v. Burris, 920 F.3d 942 (5th Cir. 2019) (held Texas robbery requires use/threatened use of physical force for ACCA)
United States v. Herrold, 941 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (held Texas burglary is generic burglary for ACCA)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause)
United States v. Reyes-Contreras, 910 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (relevant Fifth Circuit ACCA precedent referenced)
United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2008) (explains obligation to follow circuit precedent despite pending certiorari)
United States v. Perez-Torres, 15 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 1994) (discusses estoppel against the government and equitable prerequisites)
Fuller v. United States, 453 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2006) (standard of review cited for § 2255 rulings)
Heckler v. Community Health Servs. of Crawford County, 467 U.S. 51 (1984) (framework on availability of estoppel against the government)