3 F.4th 178
5th Cir.2021Background
- Everett Parker pleaded guilty in 2003 to armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113) and brandishing a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); district court imposed a mandatory life sentence under the federal three‑strikes law, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1).
- Parker moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing his life sentence should be vacated after Johnson v. United States invalidated the ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague.
- The Government supplemented the record to show Parker’s prior federal conviction was for bank robbery under § 2113(a).
- Parker’s other prior conviction was Louisiana armed robbery (1970 statute), whose elements closely track federal robbery definitions.
- The Fifth Circuit held Parker’s prior convictions qualify as “serious violent felonies” under § 3559(c)(2)(F) via the enumerated‑offense clause and the force clause, without relying on the residual clause, and affirmed denial of the § 2255 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson invalidates § 3559(c) as applied to Parker | Parker: Johnson (and related cases) void the residual clause, so priors relying on it cannot support a life term | Government: Parker’s priors qualify under other clauses, so Johnson provides no relief | Court: Did not decide residual‑clause applicability; priors qualify without it, so denial affirmed |
| Whether Parker’s prior federal bank robbery counts as an enumerated “robbery” | Parker: PSR omitted the §2113 subsection; conviction might be §2113(b) larceny and not qualify | Government: Certified record shows conviction under §2113(a) (bank robbery) | Court: Record shows §2113(a) conviction; it is an enumerated serious violent felony |
| Whether Louisiana armed robbery qualifies under enumerated/force clauses | Parker: Lack of reliable evidence he was armed or that victims were injured; challenges characterization | Government: Statute matches robbery definitions and Fifth Circuit precedent treats LA armed robbery as violent under the force clause | Court: LA armed robbery satisfies the enumerated clause and the force clause; it counts |
| Whether Parker met burden to rebut classification of priors under §3559(c)(3)(A) | Parker: Asserts absence of reliable information that weapon/injury occurred | Government: Burden is on Parker to prove by clear and convincing evidence no weapon/injury; he presented none | Court: Parker failed to meet the burden; priors stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (holding ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (holding § 16(b) residual clause unconstitutional)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (holding § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause unconstitutional)
- United States v. James, 950 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding Louisiana armed robbery is a violent felony under ACCA force clause)
- United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2009) (discussing similarity of force‑clause language)
- United States v. Cong Van Pham, 722 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for § 2255 appeals)
- State v. May, 339 So.2d 764 (La. 1976) (Louisiana armed robbery is a specific‑intent crime)