United States v. Armand Lewis-Langston

── United States v. Armand Lewis-Langston ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-4171 Doc: 37 Filed: 04/20/2026 Pg: 1 of 6 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-4171 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ARMAND SAQUAN SUFYAN LEWIS-LANGSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00321-TDS-1) Submitted: November 4, 2025 Decided: April 20, 2026 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Interim Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Dan Bishop, United States Attorney, Joanna G. McFadden, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4171 Doc: 37 Filed: 04/20/2026 Pg: 2 of 6 PER CURIAM: After Armand Saquan Sufyan Lewis-Langston pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the district court determined that he had previously committed three violent felonies on different occasions, thus qualifying him for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The court then sentenced Lewis-Langston to 200 months’ imprisonment. Lewis-Langston appeals, arguing that the district court reversibly erred by deciding at sentencing that his three ACCA predicate offenses were committed on different occasions. We held this case in abeyance for Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024); then for United States v. Brown, 136 F.4th 87 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 391 (2025), and United States v. Boggs, No. 22-4707, 2025 WL 1249364 (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) (argued but unpublished); and most recently for United States v. Blackmon, No. 22-4576, 2026 WL 624484 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2026) (argued but unpublished). Following supplemental briefing from the parties on the impact of Brown and Boggs, we conclude that the district court erred, but that the error is harmless. We therefore affirm. The ACCA enhancement applies if a defendant convicted of a § 922(g) offense “has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). In Erlinger, the Supreme Court held that the facts relating to the different occasions question “must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4171 Doc: 37 Filed: 04/20/2026 Pg: 3 of 6 plea).” 602 U.S. at 834. Thus, a district court errs by deciding the different occasions issue at sentencing. Id. at 838-39. But so-called “Erlinger errors” are subject to harmless error review. Brown, 136 F.4th at 92-96. Where, as here, the defendant was convicted after pleading guilty, the Government establishes that an Erlinger error i