United States v. Kevin Prentice, 956 F.3d 295

In June 2016 Prentice (a convicted felon) was arrested at a gun show after possessing a semi‑automatic rifle; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
His criminal history included two Texas burglary‑of‑habitation convictions and one Texas possession‑with‑intent‑to‑deliver conviction (among others).
The presentence report applied the ACCA enhancement based on those three prior convictions; the district court originally sentenced him to 188 months.
On appeal, this court (relying on Herrold I) held Texas habitation burglary was not an ACCA violent felony, so the case was remanded; on resentencing Prentice received 55 months and a standard supervised‑release condition allowing probation officer visits and plain‑view confiscation.
Subsequent developments—Herrold was vacated by the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit in Herrold II held Texas habitation burglary qualifies as an ACCA violent felony; the Supreme Court decided Shular concerning the ACCA definition of “serious drug offense.”
The Fifth Circuit panel held Shular does not undermine Vickers and that Texas possession‑with‑intent qualifies as a “serious drug offense,” so ACCA applies; the court vacated the resentencing result and remanded to reinstate the original ACCA sentence, and rejected Prentice’s plain‑error challenge to the visitation condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ACCA enhancement applies based on Prentice’s two Texas habitation burglaries and one possession‑with‑intent conviction	Prentice: after Shular the Texas possession‑with‑intent offense is not a "serious drug offense," so he lacks three ACCA predicates	Government: under Vickers and Shular the Texas possession‑with‑intent offense involves distribution and thus counts; combined with two burglary convictions ACCA applies	ACCA applies; possession‑with‑intent counts as a "serious drug offense" under Shular and Vickers; original ACCA sentence must be reinstated
Whether the supervised‑release visitation condition is unlawful and requires reversal (plain‑error review)	Prentice: the visitation condition violates the Fourth Amendment, is not related to sentencing factors, is overly restrictive, and court failed to state reasons	Government: no clear/obvious error; Cabello and related precedent foreclose plain‑error relief	No plain error; visitation condition upheld under existing Fifth Circuit precedent

Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) (interpreting ACCA’s “serious drug offense” by reference to whether state offense’s elements involve the specified conduct)
United States v. Herrold, 139 S. Ct. 271 (2019) (Supreme Court vacating earlier Fifth Circuit en banc decision)
United States v. Herrold, 941 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (held Texas habitation burglary qualifies as an ACCA violent felony on remand)
United States v. Vickers, 540 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2008) (held Texas possession‑with‑intent offense qualifies as an ACCA “serious drug offense”)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (articulating the plain‑error standard for appellate review)
United States v. Cabello, 916 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2019) (upheld visitation condition; held no plain error and relied upon by subsequent panels)