Intervening Amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 Redefines Generic Robbery and Permits Reassessment of Circuit Precedent

Introduction

United States v. Wickware (5th Cir. 2025) addresses whether a 2023 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines’ definition of “robbery” displaces binding Fifth Circuit precedent classifying Texas robbery under Penal Code § 29.02 as a “crime of violence.”

Parties: United States (Plaintiff–Appellee) v. Darrell Wickware (Defendant–Appellant).
Background: Wickware’s 2017 Texas robbery conviction and subsequent 2022 federal firearms offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Key Issue: Does the 2023 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(e)(3) defining “robbery” override prior circuit decisions (Santiesteban-Hernandez and Adair) that treated Texas robbery as a generic crime of violence?

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit, sitting per curiam, affirmed the district court’s 24-month sentence. It held that:

The Sentencing Commission’s 2023 amendment to § 4B1.2(e)(3) constitutes an intervening change in law comparable to a statutory amendment.
Because the new Guidelines text now defines “robbery” specifically, earlier panel decisions binding under the rule of orderliness no longer control.
Under a categorical comparison, Texas robbery (§ 29.02) remains the same or narrower than the Guidelines’ generic robbery definition, so it still qualifies as a “crime of violence.”

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Santiesteban-Hernandez (469 F.3d 376, 5th Cir. 2006): Held that Texas robbery corresponds substantively to generic robbery under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 despite “reckless” language.
Adair (16 F.4th 469, 5th Cir. 2021): Reaffirmed Santiesteban-Hernandez; § 29.02 “substantially correspond[ed]” to generic robbery.
Longoria (958 F.3d 372, 5th Cir. 2020): Distinguished amendments to commentary from amendments to the Guidelines text itself.
Traxler (764 F.3d 486, 5th Cir. 2014): Emphasized the rule of orderliness—one panel cannot overrule another absent intervening change in law.
Mathis v. United States (579 U.S. 500, 2016): Endorsed categorical approach—compare elements of the prior offense to the generic definition.
Taylor v. United States (495 U.S. 575, 1990): Minor terminological differences do not defeat substantive correspondence.
Elonis v. United States (575 U.S. 723, 2015) & Staples v. United States (511 U.S. 600, 1994): Discussed implicit mens rea when a statute or guideline is silent.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two steps:

Intervening Change in Law: The 2023 amendment to § 4B1.2(e)(3) is part of the Guidelines text, not mere commentary. Such textual amendments are treated like statutory amendments and can displace binding circuit precedent under the rule of orderliness.
Elemental Comparison: Under the categorical approach, the panel compared:
- Guidelines “robbery” (§ 4B1.2(e)(3)): “Unlawful taking of property from the person against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future.”
- Texas robbery (§ 29.02): “Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury” or “intentionally or knowingly threaten[ing] bodily injury” in the course of committing theft.
The court found the Texas statute’s elements are the same or narrower than the Guidelines definition—e.g., Texas law lacks the property-injury threat provision and limits temporal scope to “imminent” fear.

3. Impact

This decision signals that:

Panels may revisit long-standing precedent when the Commission amends the text of the Guidelines, not just commentary.
Defendants in other circuits must track textual amendments to the Guidelines, as they may open avenues for relief even where circuit precedent was previously adverse.
The rule of orderliness remains robust but yields to clear, textual amendments that redefine generic offenses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule of Orderliness: A lower court panel cannot overturn an earlier panel’s decision unless the law has changed (by statute, Supreme Court decision, or en banc ruling).
Categorical Approach: Courts compare only the statutory elements of the prior offense to the generic offense definition—conduct in the record of conviction is irrelevant.
Intervening Change in Law: A textual amendment to the Guidelines is treated like a new statute: it can override earlier interpretations by the same court.

Conclusion

United States v. Wickware establishes that a textual amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines defining “robbery” may displace binding Fifth Circuit decisions under the rule of orderliness. By applying the categorical approach, the court reaffirmed that Texas robbery under § 29.02 remains a “crime of violence,” but opened the door for defendants to challenge past precedent when the Guidelines text itself changes. This opinion underscores the importance of monitoring Guidelines amendments and confirms that textual revisions carry the same weight as statutory changes in federal sentencing law.