562 F. App'x 237
5th Cir.2014Background
- Spann pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The district court enhanced his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on at least three qualifying prior convictions.
- Spann received a 184-month prison term.
- He challenged § 922(g)(1) as applied under the Commerce Clause after National Federation, arguing no economic activity and no market engagement.
- He also challenged the Texas evading-arrest conviction under § 38.04 as not a violent felony, relied on Sykes and Harrimon, and attacked the ACCA residual clause as vague; the court rejected these challenges and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commerce Clause authority to §922(g)(1)? | Spann argues as applied unconstitutional. | Spann's arguments rejected in Alcantar; ongoing economic activity not required. | Affirmed upholding §922(g)(1) under ACCA guidance. |
| Is Texas §38.04 evading arrest a violent felony? | Vehicle flight could be by any vehicle; cites Sykes/Harrimon. | Court binds Harrimon; Sykes does not overrule it. | Evading arrest by vehicle remains a qualifying violent felony; no new ruling on robbery. |
| Residual clause vagueness? | Residual clause is vague per Sykes dissent. | Supreme Court has rejected vagueness challenge. | Rejected; ACCA residual clause upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of National Federation arguments)
- United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (National Federation arguments rejected in Alcantar)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (vehicle-flight focus on motor vehicle; framework for ACCA)
- Harrimon v. United States, 568 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (vehicle-flight as violent felony basis)
- United States v. Standberry, 546 F. App’x 381 (5th Cir. 2013) (Texas evading arrest by any vehicle; Harrimon continued validity)
- United States v. Gore, 636 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 2011) (ACCA residual clause upheld; vagueness rejected)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007) (relevant to residual clause interpretation)
- United States v. Fuller, 453 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2006) (standard for underlying ACCA legal conclusions)
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) (Commerce Clause interpretation referenced)