United States v. Johnnie Owen, IV
700 F. App'x 384
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Johnnie Owen IV convicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (43.26 grams).
- At sentencing, district court designated Owen a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior felonies: a 2010 Texas aggravated assault and a 2014 Texas conviction for possessing chemicals with intent to manufacture a controlled substance (Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.124).
- Owen challenged the career-offender classification; district court considered his objections and applied career-offender range.
- Fifth Circuit reviews de novo because Owen raised the issue below.
- Court held Texas aggravated assault qualifies as a § 4B1.2(a) enumerated "aggravated assault" (force-as-element).
- Court held the 2014 Texas chemical-possession conviction is broader than federal § 841(c) and 21 U.S.C. § 802 listed chemicals, so it is not a qualifying "controlled substance offense," making the career-offender designation erroneous and non-harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 Texas aggravated assault conviction qualifies as a § 4B1.2(a) "crime of violence" | Owen: it does not qualify | Government: it is an enumerated aggravated assault and meets force-as-element | Court: qualifies as enumerated aggravated assault; valid predicate |
| Whether the 2014 Texas § 481.124 chemical-possession conviction is a § 4B1.1 "controlled substance offense" | Owen: statute too broad; not a federal-listed-chemical offense | Government: counts as unlawful possession with intent to manufacture under guideline definition | Court: statute criminalizes chemicals not listed in 21 U.S.C. § 802 lists and is broader than § 841(c); does not qualify |
| Whether the career-offender enhancement stands given only one valid predicate | Owen: enhancement invalid without second qualifying prior | Government: originally relied on both convictions; later conceded error | Court: only one valid predicate; enhancement improper |
| Whether sentencing error was harmless | Owen: error affected guideline range and sentence | Government: conceded error and moved to vacate | Court: error not harmless; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shepherd, 848 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2017) (Texas aggravated assault fits § 4B1.2(a) enumerated aggravated-assault offense)
- United States v. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2007) (Texas aggravated assault satisfies force-as-element clause)
- United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing whether state offense is a federal guideline predicate)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (guideline residual clause not void for vagueness)
- United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2010) (non-harmless sentencing error requires vacatur and remand)