At page 354 Determining whether prior convictions are violent felonies under ACCA6 citing casesnies under the ACCA’s residual clause. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a). Ramirez’s sole argument on appeal is that the issue of whether his prior…
- United States v. Cornelius Wilson, 622 F. App'x 393 (5th Cir. 2015).unpublished Ramirez, 507 F. App’x 353, 354 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).
- United States v. Bennie D. Emeary, Jr., 794 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 2015).published In United States v. Ramirez, 507 F. App’x 353, 354 (5th Cir. 2013) (unpublished), this court read Constante narrowly and construed it as holding only that the Texas offense does not constitute a “burglary,” thus leaving as an open question…
- United States v. Charles St. Clair, VI, 608 F. App'x 192 (5th Cir. 2015).unpublishedRamirez, 507 Fed.Appx. 353, 354 (5th Cir.2013) (per curiam).
- United States v. Emeary, 773 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2014).publishedConstante makes clear that Emeary’s Texas offense is not a “burglary” in the meaning of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), it is true; but it does not follow that it is not a “violent felony.” That is because § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)’s definition of a “violent…
v.
Rolando RAMIREZ, Also Known as Roland Ramirez, DefendantAppellant
Rolando Ramirez is appealing the 180-month sentence imposed following his conviction for possession of a firearm subsequent to a felony conviction.
Ramirez was sentenced under the provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because he had four prior convictions for burglary , of a habitation pursuant to Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(3), which the district court determined were violent felo[*354] nies under the ACCA’s residual clause. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a).
Ramirez’s sole argument on appeal is that the issue of whether his prior convictions were violent felonies under the ACCA was foreclosed by United States v. Constante, 544 F.3d 584 (5th Cir.2008). In Constante, we did not address whether burglary under § 30.02(a)(3) was a violent felony under the ACCA’s residual clause. Thus, the issue was not foreclosed by Constante. See, e.g., Matter of Swift, 129 F.3d 792, 796 n. 18 (5th Cir.1997) (stating that we are not bound by a previous decision if that decision did not consider an issue raised in the subsequent case).
In light of the foregoing, Ramirez’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.