USA v. Christopher Holley
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50520 Affirmed] Judge: JES, Judge: RHB, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 05/23/2017 for Appellant Christopher Holley [16-50520]
Date Filed: 05/02/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
May 2, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
CHRISTOPHER HOLLEY, also known as Christopher Caruthers,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:14-CR-302-1
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Christopher Holley appeals the consecutive 120-month sentences
imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of possession of a firearm by a
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence investigation
report (PSR) recommended enhancements under the advisory Sentencing
Guidelines for, inter alia, Holley’s prior Texas attempted-murder conviction as
a crime of violence under Guideline § 4B1.2(a)(2).
At sentencing, Holley
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.
Date Filed: 05/02/2017
asserted his attempted-murder conviction did not constitute a crime of violence
and the Guideline was unconstitutionally vague. Over his objection, the court
adopted the PSR’s recommendation.
Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the
district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly
calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 48–51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved
objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues
preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo;
its factual findings, only for clear error.
E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).
On appeal, Holley claims the residual clause of Guideline § 4B1.2(a)(2)
is unconstitutionally vague in the light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
2551 (2015). After Holley’s brief was filed here, however, the Supreme Court
foreclosed this issue, holding “the Guidelines are not amenable to a vagueness
challenge”. Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 894 (2017).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?