United States v. Curry

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 22-11084

FILED

January 13, 2025

____________

Lyle W. Cayce

United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Paul Curry, Jr.,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-396-1

______________________________

Before Richman, Haynes, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Priscilla Richman, Circuit Judge:

Paul Curry, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon. The district

court sentenced him to 262 months of imprisonment. For the first time on

appeal, Curry argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional and that the district

court incorrectly sentenced him as an armed career criminal under the

Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Because he fails

to demonstrate plain error, we affirm.

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

I

Paul Curry, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon.

The presentence report (PSR) concluded that Curry was an armed career

criminal within the meaning of the ACCA because he had four prior Texas

convictions for burglary of a habitation, each committed on occasions

different from one another. Applying the ACCA enhancement, the PSR

determined that Curry faced a statutory minimum sentence of fifteen years,

a statutory maximum of life, and a guidelines range of 210 to 262 months of

imprisonment.

Curry did not object to the PSR. The district court adopted the

findings and conclusions in the PSR and sentenced him within the guidelines

range to 262 months of imprisonment. Curry timely appealed.

II

We first address Curry’s arguments that § 922(g)(1) is

unconstitutional. Curry did not challenge the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)

before the district court. Therefore, we review his constitutional challenge

for plain error. 1 To establish reversible error under plain error review, Curry

must show (1) an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affected his

substantial rights. 2 Even if he makes such a showing, this court has discretion

to correct the error only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 3

_____________________

1

United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014).

2

United States v. Brown, 437 F.3d 450, 451 (5th Cir. 2006).

3

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)).

2

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

First, Curry argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because it

exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. “[W]e have

consistently upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)” in the face of

identical challenges. 4 This argument is foreclosed.

In a similar vein, Curry stipulated to the firearm’s past movement in

interstate commerce but argues that § 922(g)(1) requires more. This

argument is similarly foreclosed by precedent. 5

Second, Curry mounts a facial challenge to the constitutionality of

§ 922(g)(1), arguing that, applying the Supreme Court’s decision in New

York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 6 § 922(g)(1) violates the Second

Amendment. This argument, too, is foreclosed by precedent.

“A facial challenge is an attack on a statute itself as opposed to a

particular application.” 7 The Supreme Court has recently confirmed that,

generally speaking, in cases other than a suit based on the First Amendment,

“a plaintiff cannot succeed on a facial challenge unless he ʻestablish[es] that

no set of circumstances exists under which the [law] would be valid,’ or he

_____________________

4

United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013); see also United States

v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999) (“This court has repeatedly emphasized that

the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to question.”).

5

See United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“The

‘in or affecting commerce’ element can be satisfied if the firearm possessed by a convicted

felon had previously traveled in interstate commerce.”); Scarborough v. United States, 431

U.S. 563, 575 (1977) (“[W]e see no indication that Congress intended to require any more

than the minimal nexus that the firearm have been, at some time, in interstate

commerce.”).

6

142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).

7

City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. 409, 415 (2015).

3

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

shows that the law lacks a ʻplainly legitimate sweep.’” 8 The Court has also

explained that “when assessing whether a statute meets this standard, the

Court has considered only applications of the statute in which it actually

authorizes or prohibits conduct.” 9

Section 922(g)(1) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any

person . . . who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to ship or transport in

interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any

firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has

been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 10 Our court

held in United States v. Diaz 11 that § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional as

applied to a person who was found in possession of a firearm following his

previous felony convicted under Texas law for vehicular theft. 12 The

defendant in Diaz was convicted under § 922(g)(1) as being a felon in

possession of a firearm. The Diaz decision applied the Supreme Court’s

recent decision in United States v. Rahimi, 13 and, after extensive analysis of

Diaz’s as-applied challenge based on the Second Amendment, held that

“ʻ[t]aken together,’ laws authorizing severe punishments for thievery and

permanent disarmament in other cases establish that our tradition of firearm

_____________________

8

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 723 (2024) (alteration in original) (first

quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987); then quoting Wash. State Grange

v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008)).

9

Patel, 576 U.S. at 418 (citing Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833

(1992)).

10

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

11

116 F.4th 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2024).

12

Id. at 461-62.

13

144 S.Ct. 1889 (2024).

4

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

regulation supports the application of § 922(g)(1) to Diaz.” 14 Because Diaz’s

conviction as a felon in possession was upheld, it follows that circumstances

exist under which § 922(g)(1)’s prohibitions regarding a felon in possession

of a firearm are not facially invalid. Indeed, in Diaz itself, this court held that

Diaz’s facial challenge failed because the statute was constitutional as applied

to the facts of his own case. 15 Curry’s argument based on the Second

Amendment that his conviction was clear or obvious error fails.

III

We next address Curry’s challenges to his ACCA sentence

enhancement. Curry advances two arguments for why his ACCA sentence

enhancement was error. First, he asserts that the district court violated his

Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by not submitting the question of whether

his prior crimes occurred on separate occasions to a jury. Second, and in the

alternative, Curry argues that the district court erred by solely relying on the

PSR in applying the ACCA enhancement.

Before reaching the substance of Curry’s challenges, we must

determine the appropriate standard of review. Curry contends that he

preserved his challenges to his ACCA enhancement and that review is de

novo. He points to a footnote in the factual resume stating that he objected

to “any sentence of imprisonment that exceeds ten years” on the grounds

that “[a]ny sentence exceeding those limits would violate his rights to Due

_____________________

14

Diaz, 116 F.4th at 471 (quoting Rahimi, 144 S.Ct. at 1901).

15

Id. at 471-72 (citing Rahimi, 144 S.Ct. at 1898) (holding that because Rahimi’s

conviction under § 922(g)(8) was constitutional as applied to him, he could not sustain a

facial challenge)); see also United States v. Trevino, ___F.4th ___, 2024 WL 5249789, at

*4 (5th Cir. 2024) (reiterating the Supreme Court’s continued emphasis that “laws

disarming ‘felons’ are ‘presumptively lawful’” before rejecting the defendant’s facial

challenge to § 922(g)(1) based on Diaz (first quoting Rahimi, 144 S.Ct. at 1902; then citing

Diaz, 116 F.4th at 471-72)).

5

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

Process, his right to have an indictment that includes the relevant and

elemental facts of the charge against him, and his right to have his guilt

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Government disagrees, arguing

that Curry’s objection was not specific enough to put the district court on

notice of potential issues for appeal.

We agree with the Government that Curry failed to preserve his

ACCA-sentence-enhancement challenges adequately. “To preserve error,

an objection must be sufficiently specific to alert the district court to the

nature of the alleged error and to provide an opportunity for correction.” 16

While “the objection and argument on appeal need not be identical,” the

objection must “‘g[i]ve the district court the opportunity to address’ the

gravamen of the argument presented on appeal.” 17

For defendants challenging a court’s failure to submit a sentence-

enhancing fact to a jury, we have held that “[i]f a defendant voices [an]

objection[] sufficient to apprise the sentencing court that he is raising a

constitutional claim with respect to judicial fact-finding in the sentencing

process, the error is preserved.” 18 Curry’s objection, however, did not

apprise the district court that he was challenging its separate-occasions

determination. His objection merely broadly stated his rights as a criminal

defendant. The objection did not specify the ACCA’s separate-occasion

requirement or even mention his right to a jury. Moreover, at sentencing,

Curry acknowledged that there were no pending objections to the PSR and

_____________________

16

United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009).

17

United States v. Nesmith, 866 F.3d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original)

(quoting United States v. Garcia-Perez, 779 F.3d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 2015)).

18

United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez, 488 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Castaneda–Barrientos, 448 F.3d 731, 732

(5th Cir. 2006)).

6

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

he did not make any other objections. Without more specificity in the factual

resume footnote, the district court did not have an opportunity to address

“the gravamen” of Curry’s argument on appeal that he was entitled to have

a jury determine whether his prior crimes occurred on separate occasions. 19

Because Curry failed to preserve this ACCA sentence enhancement

challenge, we review it for plain error.

Plain error review requires that Curry establish an error that is clear

or obvious. 20 After the parties’ briefs were filed in this case, the Supreme

Court decided Erlinger v. United States. 21 In Erlinger, the Court recognized a

defendant’s right to “have a jury resolve ACCA’s occasions inquiry

unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.” 22

Because of Erlinger, we need not address Curry’s contention that the

district court erred by relying solely on the PSR’s characterization of his

prior convictions. Regardless of the district court’s reliance on the PSR or

other materials, the district court clearly erred by not submitting the

separate-occasions inquiry to a jury. In other words, there was no evidence

the district court could have permissibly relied on to make the separate-

occasions inquiry.

_____________________

19

Cf. United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th 477, 482, n.4 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding

that a defendant’s written objection to the PSR that “he is presumed innocent of any

arrests or apprehension not resulting in a conviction” did not “reasonably ‘inform[] the

court of the legal error at issue’—i.e., improper reliance on a bare arrest record” (quoting

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020)); United States v. Sanchez-

Espinal, 762 F.3d 425, 429 (5th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he objections raised to the PSR and at the

sentencing hearing did not put the district court on notice” of defendant’s argument.).

20

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

21

144 S. Ct. 1840 (2024).

22

Id. at 1852.

7

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

Under plain error review, however, the defendant must do more than

establish clear error. The defendant must also prove that the error affected

his substantial rights. 23 To prove an error affected his substantial rights, a

“defendant ordinarily ‘must show a reasonable probability that, but for the

error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.’” 24 We

have explained that this analysis is akin to the harmless error review for

preserved challenges, except “the defendant has the burden of proving that

an error did impact his substantial rights.” 25

It is not enough that Curry’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated.

The Supreme Court has clarified that even Sixth Amendment violations,

such as “[f]ail[ing] to submit a sentencing factor to the jury” or “fail[ing] to

submit an element to the jury,” are not structural errors. 26 We have also

recently applied harmless-error analysis to a district court’s error under

Erlinger in failing to afford the defendant a jury determination of the

“different occasions” inquiry. 27 Consequently, Curry has the burden of

showing that if the district court had correctly submitted the separate-

_____________________

23

United States v. Brown, 437 F.3d 450, 451 (5th Cir. 2006).

24

United States v. Randall, 924 F.3d 790, 796 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Molina-

Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016)).

25

Id. at 795.

26

Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222 (2006); see also Erlinger v. United

States, 144 S. Ct. 1840, 1860 (2024) (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (explaining that

violations of a defendant’s right “to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt

whether his predicate offenses were committed on different occasions for purposes of the

Armed Career Criminal Act” are “subject to harmless error review”).

27

United States v. Butler, 122 F.4th 584, 589-90 (5th Cir. 2024) (likening an error

under Erlinger to an error under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and thus

applying harmless-error analysis to hold an error harmless based on a “straightforward”

record).

8

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

occasions inquiry to the jury, there is a reasonable probability that he would

not be subject to the ACCA-enhanced sentence. 28

To determine whether Curry has met this burden, we “may consider

the entire record.” 29 That includes the supplemental record on appeal. In

Greer v. United States, 30 the defendant argued that plain-error review of his

conviction must exclusively focus on the trial record. 31 Specifically, the

defendant argued that the appellate court may only review the trial record to

determine whether the district court’s failure to submit an element of the

offense to the jury affected his substantial rights. 32 The Supreme Court

disagreed, holding that “an appellate court conducting plain-error review

may consider the entire record—not just the record from the particular

proceeding where the error occurred.” 33 Accordingly, we may consider the

supplemental record submitted to us, which details Curry’s prior

convictions.

_____________________

28

See United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that

the plain-error substantial rights analysis “is akin to the harmless error analysis employed

in preserved error cases, which asks whether a rational jury would have found the defendant

guilty absent the error”); cf. Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2097 (2021) (“Greer

has the burden of showing that, if the District Court had correctly instructed the jury on

the mens rea element of a felon-in-possession offense, there is a ‘reasonable probability’

that he would have been acquitted.” (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S.

74, 83 (2004)).

29

Greer, 141 S. Ct. at 2098; see also Butler, 122 F.4th at 589 (“An otherwise valid

conviction will not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole

record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (quoting

United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 665 (5th Cir. 2002))).

30

141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021).

31

Id. at 2098.

32

Id.

33

Id.

9

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

In light of the conviction documents in the supplemental record on

appeal, Curry has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that his

sentence would have been different had the district court not erred. These

documents demonstrate that Curry’s prior four burglaries were committed

against different victims and were separated by weeks and sometimes years.

Further, at least twice, the burglaries were separated by intervening

convictions. First, a guilty-plea judgment reveals Curry pleaded guilty in

January 1986 to a burglary that occurred in September 1985. Second,

according to two different guilty-plea judgments, Curry pleaded guilty in

October 1987 for two burglaries that occurred over a year after his previous

burglary conviction, one on July 20, 1987, and one on August 2, 1987. Finally,

another judgment reveals that a jury convicted Curry of burglary in July 1989

for conduct that occurred in March 1989—nearly two years after his 1987

convictions.

While the Supreme Court has cautioned that “no particular lapse of

time or distance between offenses automatically separates a single occasion

from distinct ones,” 34 the Court has also explained that “a single factor—

especially of time or place—can decisively differentiate occasions.” 35 Here,

Curry’s convictions were separated by years, and the underlying burglaries

were often separated by an intervening conviction. Curry carries the burden

to establish his substantial rights were affected, and he fails to provide any

plausible explanation for how a jury may reasonably conclude these crimes

were not committed on separate occasions.

_____________________

34

Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840, 1855 (2024).

35

Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063, 1071 (2022).

10

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari, vacatur, and remand of

United States v. Schorovsky 36 does not alter that conclusion. In Schorovsky,

this court held that the district court did not plainly err by treating the

defendant’s prior offenses as having taken place on separate occasions for

ACCA purposes when he committed the offenses two days apart. 37 The

Supreme Court then granted the defendant’s petition for certiorari, vacated

this court’s opinion, and remanded the case for further consideration in light

of Erlinger. 38

Curry argues that the grant, vacate, and remand in Schorovsky shows

that the Court “was evidently unwilling to assume that the deprivation of a

jury trial as to the separate occasions requirement had no effect on substantial

rights where the prior offenses occurred two days apart.” This interpretation

of the Supreme Court’s decision, however, fails to take two factors into

account. First, the Supreme Court’s “normal practice where the court below

has not yet passed on the harmlessness of any error” is to “remand” the case

to the circuit court “to consider in the first instance” whether the error was

harmless. 39 Because this court did not determine that any error had occurred

in Schorovsky, we never conducted harmless error analysis, so it is in line with

the Supreme Court’s standard practice to direct us to do so in the first

instance.

Second, in Schorovsky, two of the defendant’s ACCA-qualifying

offenses took place two days apart, a gap which this court deemed

_____________________

36

95 F.4th 945 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. granted, vacated, and remanded, ___S. Ct. ___,

2024 WL 4486342 (2024).

37

Id. at 947-48.

38

Schorovsky v. United States, ___S. Ct. ___, 2024 WL 4486342, at *1 (2024).

39

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25 (1999).

11

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

“conclusive” without further information in affirming that they occurred on

separate occasions. 40 Meanwhile, the three burglaries at issue in Erlinger

took place across the span of seven days—on April 4, April 8, and April 11—

yet the Court in that case nevertheless remanded the case rather than ruling

that the error was harmless. 41 Given that remand was appropriate when the

gaps between offenses were between three and four days, it would defy

expectations for the Court not to remand a case that involves only a two-day

gap between offenses, especially as smaller periods of time more strongly

indicate one continuous occasion. 42 By contrast, as explained above, the

record shows that gaps of weeks or even years separated Curry’s prior

offenses. Thus, even if the Supreme Court believed that the error in

Schorovsky may have impacted the defendant’s substantial rights because the

gap between offenses was only two days, it does not follow that the district

court’s Erlinger error affected Curry’s substantial rights when the gaps

between his offenses were much longer.

In his supplemental brief, Curry also suggests that his substantial

rights were affected because the Government cannot show that he would

have pleaded guilty had he known he had the right to have a jury determine

the separate-occasions inquiry. He also argues that perhaps the Government

would not have pursued an ACCA sentence enhancement had it been aware

of the jury requirement. Under plain-error review, however, the burden is

_____________________

40

Schorovsky, 95 F.4th at 947-48 (quoting United States v. Alkheqani, 78 F.4th 707,

726 (5th Cir. 2023)).

41

Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840, 1862 (2024) (Kavanaugh, J.,

dissenting); id. at 1860 (majority opinion).

42

See Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063, 1071 (2022) (“Offenses committed

close in time, in an uninterrupted course of conduct, will often count as part of one

occasion; not so offenses separated by substantial gaps in time or significant intervening

events.”).

12

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

on Curry to establish a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded

guilty had he known he had a right for a jury to make the separate-occasions

determination. 43 Curry never argues that he would not have pleaded guilty;

rather, he argues that “the scant record evidence regarding the prior

convictions, combined with the open-ended nature of the Wooden 44 inquiry,

makes trial rather than plea an entirely rational choice.” However, the

Supreme Court in Greer required more than a mere suggestion that the

defendant might not have pleaded guilty in order to find plain error; rather,

the Court faulted the defendant for not having “argued or made a

representation that [he] would have presented evidence at trial” that would

have supported his claim that his mental state did not satisfy an element of

the crime. 45 Here, Curry relies on the “scant record evidence” to make this

showing, but we do not view the record evidence as weak. As explained

above, court documentation shows that weeks or years separated his prior

offenses, and he committed them against different victims. Curry never

argues that these documents are inaccurate. Rather, he argues that they may

be insufficient given the “open-ended nature of the Wooden inquiry.” But

given the Supreme Court’s observation that “a single factor—especially of

_____________________

43

See Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2097 (2021) (explaining that the

defendant had “the burden of showing that, if the District Court had correctly advised him

of the mens rea element of the offense, there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that he would not

have pled guilty” (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004)).

44

Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022).

45

Greer, 141 S. Ct. at 2098 (observing that “[i]mportantly, on appeal, neither

[defendant] has argued or made a representation that they would have presented evidence

at trial that they did not in fact know they were felons when they possessed firearms,” and

therefore the defendant who pleaded guilty could not “show that, but for the [] error during

the plea colloquy, there is a reasonable probability that he would have gone to trial rather

than plead guilty”).

13

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

time or place—can decisively differentiate occasions,” 46 we disagree that the

time gaps and identity of the victims constitute “scant record evidence.”

Moreover, in his factual resume, Curry acknowledged “that if the

Government meets its burden of proving by the required competent and

credible evidence that [he] had previously been convicted of, inter alia, at

least three violent felonies,” then he would be subject to the ACCA’s

mandatory minimum sentence. In the absence of any substantiated argument

that he would not have pleaded guilty, Curry has not established that the

district court’s Erlinger error affected his substantial rights.

IV

Finally, we briefly address Curry’s request that we reconsider a

previously denied joint motion to remand in light of Erlinger. At the time of

the joint motion, which was before Erlinger, the Government took the

position that Curry was ineligible for an ACCA sentence because, in

pleading guilty, he did not admit that his prior burglary offenses were

committed on at least three different occasions. While the Government

wanted to present this position to the district court so it could reconsider

Curry’s sentence, a motions panel of our court denied the motion because

the movants failed to establish that the district court may have committed

legal error in its sentencing. Given Erlinger, the motions panel’s reasoning is

undoubtedly no longer valid; the district court clearly erred by failing to

submit the separate-occasions question to a jury. But the Government does

not argue for a remand now. In both its merits briefs and supplemental brief,

it argues that we should affirm Curry’s conviction and sentence. The only

published Fifth Circuit cases that Curry cites for this request are ones in

which we remanded based on the Government’s “agree[ment] that the

_____________________

46

Wooden, 142 S. Ct. at 1071.

14

Case: 22-11084 Document: 163-1 Page: 15 Date Filed: 01/13/2025

No. 22-11084

[defendant’s] sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for

resentencing.” 47 That is not the case here. Moreover, given the absence of

any evidence suggesting his prior crimes occurred on separate occasions,

Curry has failed to persuade us that a remand in this case would be “just

under the circumstances.” 48

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

_____________________

47

United States v. Armendariz-Moreno, 571 F.3d 490, 491 (5th Cir. 2009) (per

curiam); see also United States v. Castano, 217 F.3d 889, 889 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

(“[T]he government now confesses error and takes the position that Castano is entitled to

relief.”).

48

28 U.S.C. § 2106.

15