Intervening Amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 Redefines Robbery and Upholds Texas Robbery as a Crime of Violence

Introduction

In United States v. Wickware, No. 24-10519 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025), the Fifth Circuit addressed whether an intervening November 2023 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines (§ 4B1.2) altered the long-standing characterization of Texas robbery as a “crime of violence.” Defendant–Appellant Darrell Wickware, previously convicted of robbery under Texas law and later charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) for firearm possession, argued that the amended generic definition of “robbery” no longer encompassed his prior Texas conviction. The government maintained that binding circuit precedent—United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez (2006) and United States v. Adair (2021)—continued to control. The Fifth Circuit, sitting per curiam, affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the amended Guidelines definition indeed governs and that Texas robbery remains a crime of violence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the career-offender enhancement. It held:

The Sentencing Guidelines amendment to § 4B1.2(e)(3) constitutes an “intervening change in the law” that may overrule prior circuit precedent.
Under the amended Guidelines text, “robbery” is defined as “the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person . . . against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future.”
When comparing element by element, Texas Penal Code § 29.02’s definition (“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury” or “intentionally or knowingly threaten[ing] or plac[ing] another in fear of imminent bodily injury . . . in the course of committing theft”) matches or is narrower than the generic definition.
Consequently, Wickware’s Texas robbery conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), and the district court properly applied the enhancement.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez (5th Cir. 2006): First held that Texas robbery, with its “immediate danger” element, falls within the generic robbery definition.
United States v. Adair (5th Cir. 2021): Reaffirmed Santiesteban-Hernandez under the then-existing Guidelines, finding Texas robbery “substantially correspond[s]” to generic robbery.
United States v. Rodriguez (5th Cir. en banc 2013): Abrogated part of Santiesteban-Hernandez on other grounds, but left the robbery holding intact.
United States v. Traxler (5th Cir. 2014): Confirmed that one panel cannot overrule another absent an intervening change in law.
United States v. Longoria (5th Cir. 2020): Distinguished amendments to Guidelines commentary from amendments to the Guidelines text itself.
Taylor v. United States (U.S. 1990): Emphasized that “minor variations in terminology” do not defeat correspondence to generic offenses.

2. Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning unfolds in two main steps:

Rule of Orderliness and Intervening Amendment: Under Fifth Circuit precedent, only a Supreme Court decision, en banc decision, or an intervening statutory (or Guidelines text) amendment may displace a prior panel’s holding. The Sentencing Commission’s November 2023 amendment to § 4B1.2(e)(3) constitutes such an intervening change in law, analogous to a statutory amendment and thus not bound by Santiesteban-Hernandez or Adair.
Categorical Comparison of Elements: Applying the categorical approach, the court compared the elements of Texas robbery (§ 29.02) with the amended generic definition.
- “In the course of committing theft” versus “by means of actual or threatened force . . . or fear of injury.” Both require force or threatened force contemporaneous with the taking.
- The Texas statute’s “imminent bodily injury” requirement is narrower than the Guidelines’ “immediate or future” fear provision.
- The Guidelines also cover threats of property harm, which Texas robbery does not—but that makes the Guidelines definition broader, satisfying the “same or narrower” test.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies that:

Amendments to the actual text of the Sentencing Guidelines can override conflicting circuit precedents without en banc or Supreme Court action.
Future defendants challenging career-offender enhancements must account for the amended generic definitions, as panels are no longer bound by pre-amendment characterizations.
The ruling underscores the continued vitality of the categorical approach and the importance of textual alignment between state offenses and Guidelines definitions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Categorical Approach: A method comparing statutory elements of a prior conviction to a generic offense definition, rather than examining facts of the individual case.
Rule of Orderliness: A Fifth Circuit policy that one three-judge panel cannot overturn another’s published opinion unless a higher authority intervenes.
Generic Crime of Violence: The uniform federal definition in the Guidelines listing certain offenses (including robbery) that trigger enhanced sentencing.
Intervening Amendment: Changes to the Guidelines text itself (not just commentary) that have the force of law and can modify prior legal interpretations.

Conclusion

United States v. Wickware affirms that the November 2023 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(e)(3) reshaped the generic definition of “robbery” and, by doing so, relieved the Fifth Circuit of its earlier panel precedents (Santiesteban-Hernandez and Adair). Through a straightforward element-by-element comparison, the court confirmed Texas robbery remains a crime of violence under the amended Guidelines. This decision highlights the power of textual amendments to the Guidelines and reinforces the categorical approach in career-offender analysis.