United States v. Lee Standberry, 546 F. App'x 381

Standberry pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
District court sentenced him to 180 months, the ACCA mandatory minimum, based on three prior convictions for violent felony or serious drug offense.
The Texas conviction at issue is evading arrest or detention using a vehicle in violation of Texas Penal Code § 38.04(a) and (b)(1).
Government sought summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension to file brief.
Court reviews ACCA de novo for legal conclusions and previously held that § 38.04(b)(1) is a violent felony under the ACCA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 38.04(b)(1) evading arrest with a vehicle qualify as a violent felony under ACCA?	Standberry asserts it is not, because the offense can be committed in any vehicle.	Standberry relies on Sykes to challenge Harrimon; contends no motor vehicle required invalidating Harrimon.	Harrimon control; vehicle fleeing is a violent felony.
Whether Sykes overruled Harrimon sub silentio as to the vehicle requirement for ACCA violent felony	Standberry argues Sykes implicitly overruled Harrimon by emphasizing motor vehicle use.	Court has not shown Sykes overruled Harrimon explicitly or implicitly.	Sykes did not overrule Harrimon.
Whether the ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague	Standberry cites dissent in Sykes supporting vagueness.	Supreme Court rejected vagueness challenge to the residual clause.	Residual clause is not unconstitutionally vague.

United States v. Harrimon, 568 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (fleeing by vehicle constitutes a violent felony under ACCA)
Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (Supreme Court 2011) (vehicle-flight conviction can be a violent felony)
United States v. Gore, 636 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 2011) (upholds residual-clause approach to ACCA)
James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court 2007) (vagueness concerns cited in ACCA analyses)