Background
In 2007, a jury convicted Keelon Jmar Senegal on eight counts arising from an armed bank robbery and its coverup. For two felon-in-possession counts, Counts 4SS and 8SS, the district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act based on a cocaine conviction and two Texas robbery convictions. Senegal received 360 months on each of those counts, concurrent with several other sentences, plus two consecutive life sentences on separate firearm counts.
After the Supreme Court invalidated ACCA’s residual clause in Johnson v. United States, Senegal pursued a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fifth Circuit initially concluded that the sentencing court more likely than not had relied on the residual clause, but deemed the error harmless because then-controlling circuit law treated Texas robbery-by-threat as an ACCA predicate under the elements clause. Subsequent Texas and Fifth Circuit decisions established that the Texas robbery statute was indivisible, undermining that harmless-error analysis. The Fifth Circuit recalled its mandate and reheard the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Senegal’s ACCA-enhanced sentences on Counts 4SS and 8SS were unconstitutional. The legal landscape at the time of sentencing showed that the district court more likely than not relied on ACCA’s now-invalid residual clause, and the intervening treatment of Texas robbery meant that the error could no longer be considered harmless.
The majority declined to invoke either the concurrent-sentence doctrine or procedural default. It also declined Senegal’s request for a complete resentencing under the sentencing-package doctrine because he had not shown that the two ACCA-enhanced sentences were interdependent with the sentences on his other counts, including his two consecutive life sentences. The court therefore vacated only the sentences on Counts 4SS and 8SS and remanded for resentencing limited to those counts.
Judge Willett dissented only on procedural default. He agreed that the ACCA enhancements violated Johnson and that neither the concurrent-sentence doctrine nor the sentencing-package doctrine controlled, but would have considered the government’s belated procedural-default defense and affirmed the denial of § 2255 relief.
Key Takeaways
- An ACCA sentence cannot stand when the sentencing court more likely than not relied on the invalidated residual clause and the prior convictions do not otherwise qualify as predicates.
- The government’s failure to raise procedural default in the district court left the Fifth Circuit discretion to decline that defense on appeal.
- The court ordered resentencing only on the two ACCA-enhanced counts, leaving Senegal’s other sentences—including two consecutive life terms—outside the remand.
Why It Matters
The decision shows that an intervening state-court interpretation of a criminal statute can undo an earlier federal determination that a prior conviction qualifies under ACCA’s elements clause. It also illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s willingness to recall a mandate when later authority reveals that the premise of its harmless-error ruling was mistaken.
At the same time, the limited remand underscores that successful collateral relief on particular counts does not automatically reopen an entire multicount sentencing judgment. A defendant seeking full resentencing must demonstrate that the affected and unaffected sentences formed an interdependent sentencing package.