66 F.4th 1032
5th Cir.2023Background:
- Samuel Valencia pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- The district court enhanced his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), producing a 235‑month term.
- ACCA enhancement applies when an offender has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses "committed on occasions different from one another."
- Valencia argued the "different occasions" factual finding was a Sixth Amendment issue because it was not charged in the indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or admitted), so the ACCA enhancement was unconstitutional.
- The Government here conceded that the different‑occasions requirement must be charged/found by a jury, but the Fifth Circuit declined to follow that concession because binding circuit precedent holds otherwise.
- The court affirmed Valencia’s sentence, explaining that Supreme Court decision in Wooden did not address the specific Sixth Amendment question Valencia raised and thus did not disturb Fifth Circuit precedent.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACCA’s "different occasions" element must be charged in the indictment and admitted or proven to a jury | Government conceded the element must be charged and proved by a jury | Valencia: enhancement unconstitutional because the occasions element was not charged/admited/found by a jury | Affirmed — Fifth Circuit precedent controls; the element need not be alleged in the indictment or found by a jury; Wooden is not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 465 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2006) (Fifth Circuit precedent rejecting requirement that ACCA occasions be alleged/proved to jury)
- United States v. Davis, 487 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2007) (same)
- United States v. Eddins, [citation="451 F. App'x 395"] (5th Cir. 2011) (applies White to reject indictment/proof requirement)
- United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2014) (explains that decisions like Wooden do not override binding circuit precedent when not directly on point)
- United States v. Castaneda, 740 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2013) (government concessions are not binding on the court)
- Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) (Supreme Court decision that did not address whether a jury must resolve ACCA’s "different occasions" question)