USA v. Lawrence Archer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-50393 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 08/23/2017 for Appellant Lawrence Archer [15-50393]

Case: 15-50393

Document: 00514100138

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/02/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 15-50393
Summary Calendar

FILED
August 2, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LAWRENCE ARCHER,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:14-CR-787-1
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Lawrence Archer was convicted of one count of
possession of a firearm by a felon and was sentenced to serve 84 months in
prison and a three-year term of supervised release. He appeals his sentence,
arguing that his Texas offense of evading arrest with a vehicle is not a crime
of violence (COV) because the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (2014)
is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 15-50393

Document: 00514100138

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/02/2017

No. 15-50393
(2016). He also contends that the Texas robbery offense for which he was
convicted is no longer a COV as an enumerated offense in Application Note 1
to § 4B1.2 (2014) because the comment modifies the residual clause, which is
unconstitutional under Johnson.

He asserts that, in the absence of the

unconstitutional residual clause, Application Note 1 impermissibly expands
the definition of a crime of violence and cannot stand.
After Archer submitted his appellate brief, the Supreme Court held that
the former § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual clause “is not void for vagueness” because
“the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process
Clause.” Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 892 (2017). That decision
renders moot Archer’s arguments based on the former § 4B1.2(a)(2)’s residual
clause and Application Note One.
AFFIRMED.

2