Harmless-Error Review of ACCA “Different Occasions” Determinations Post-Erlinger

Introduction

United States v. Valencia, 22-50283 (5th Cir. May 15, 2025), confronts the intersection of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) and the Sixth Amendment jury‐trial guarantee as refined by the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). Samuel Valencia pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). The district court enhanced his sentence under ACCA’s mandatory-minimum provisions, finding three predicate “violent felonies” occurred on “different occasions.” Valencia challenged that finding as a judicial fact‐finding violation of Apprendi and Alleyne, but after the Fifth Circuit affirmed, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Erlinger’s requirement that a jury, not a judge, decide the “different occasions” inquiry beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit held that the district court committed constitutional error by resolving the “different occasions” question at sentencing rather than submitting it to a jury, as mandated by Erlinger.
Applying standard harmless-error review, the appellate panel concluded that any rational juror, based on Shepard-approved documents, would have found Valencia’s four Texas burglary convictions occurred on three separate occasions (July 16, 1987; November 10, 1987; and February 1, 1994).
Because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, Valencia’s 235-month sentence under ACCA was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) – Facts that increase a penalty above the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) – Extends Apprendi to facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences.
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) – Holds the ACCA’s “different occasions” determination must be made by a jury unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Butler, 122 F.4th 584 (5th Cir. 2024) – Establishes that an Erlinger error is reviewed under the harmless-error standard.
Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022) – Identifies factors for distinguishing separate ACCA predicate occasions, emphasizing time gaps and location.
United States v. Alkheqani, 78 F.4th 707 (5th Cir. 2023) – Applies Wooden’s multi-factor framework.
Fifth Circuit cases Davis, White, and Eddins – Previously allowed judicial fact‐finding on ACCA predicates, but were effectively overruled by Erlinger as to the “different occasions” inquiry.

2. Legal Reasoning

The panel first acknowledged Erlinger’s clear holding that judges cannot decide the “different occasions” element of ACCA predicates; that decision belongs to a jury. Finding that constitutional error, the court then applied harmless‐error review, as prescribed by Butler and derived from harmless‐error precedents such as United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 665 (5th Cir. 2002). Under this test, an error is harmless only if the record permits the court to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a rational jury would have found the disputed facts.

To determine whether separate burglaries qualified as distinct occasions, the court turned to Shepard‐approved documents (indictments and judgments). It applied the Wooden framework, focusing primarily on:

Timing: Separate episodes spanning nearly four months and then over six years.
Victim diversity: Each burglary targeted a different victim.

These factors “decisively differentiate” the occasions. The court rejected Valencia’s contentions about the Shepard documents’ insufficiency, noting that a single decisive factor—especially time—can establish separateness.

3. Impact

United States v. Valencia clarifies two critical points for ACCA practice in the Fifth Circuit and beyond:

Jury Primacy on “Different Occasions”: Post-Erlinger, courts must submit that issue to jury verdict.
Harmless-Error Safeguard: Not every Erlinger error demands remand; where Shepard documents or uncontested records show separate occasions beyond a reasonable doubt, sentences can stand.

This decision will likely streamline appeals where temporal gaps or victim differences are plain on the record. Trial strategy should now include jury instructions on ACCA’s occasions element, and defense counsel should identify possible gaps in the Shepard record to preserve arguments for remand.

Complex Concepts Simplified

ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act): A federal law imposing a 15-year mandatory minimum on felons in possession of firearms who have ≥3 prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on “different occasions.”
Shepard-approved Documents: A restricted set of materials (indictments, plea colloquies, judgments) courts may consult to determine the nature of prior convictions without breaching due-process limits on judicial fact-finding.
Harmless-Error Review: A standard of appellate review asking whether an error, though constitutional, can be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the entire record.

Conclusion

United States v. Valencia marks an important refinement in ACCA jurisprudence: while Erlinger elevates the Sixth Amendment right to jury determination for the “different occasions” inquiry, Valencia confirms that not every failure to empanel a jury necessitates resentencing. When the record indisputably shows separate predicate offenses—especially through Shepard documents with clear dates and distinct victims—courts may deem the error harmless. This ruling balances jury‐trial rights with judicial economy and provides a roadmap for both prosecutors and defense counsel in structuring ACCA prosecutions and appeals.