United States v. James

── United States v. James ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50144 Document: 99-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50144 FILED June 2, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Allen Houston James, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:21-CR-106-1 ______________________________ Before Willett, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge: In June 2000, an unknown assailant entered M.M.’s barracks room at Fort Hood, sexually assaulted her, and stabbed her again and again—twice in the neck, missing major blood vessels by mere millimeters.1 The investigation soon went cold. Nearly two decades later, forensic genealogy revived it. DNA from semen found on M.M.’s mattress cover led _____________________ 1 Out of respect for the victim’s privacy, we use only her initials. Case: 25-50144 Document: 99-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 No. 25-50144 investigators first to a close genetic relative of the attacker, and then to Allen James. A jury convicted James of attempted murder,2 and the district court sentenced him to 200 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. James now raises three arguments: (1) the evidence did not prove an intent to kill, (2) the jury instructions failed to require such an intent, and (3) the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause3 by using the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at sentencing rather than those in effect when the crime occurred. Only the last argument succeeds. A rational jury could find that James intended to kill M.M., and James cannot obtain reversal based on instructional language he materially requested. But, as the Government concedes, the district court plainly erred by applying a later Guidelines Manual that increased James’s advisory range. We therefore AFFIRM the conviction, VACATE the sentence, and REMAND for resentencing. I. Background A. The Attack and Injuries In June 2000, M.M. had been stationed at Fort Hood for just over a year. She lived in Room 230 in one of four barracks surrounding a grassy field. Sometime after 1:00 a.m. on June 18, she awoke to the sound of someone opening her unlocked door. A man was standing in the doorway. M.M. did not recognize him, but she later described him as “a tall light-skinned black man, [with] a bald head [and] a baby face.” He wore black jeans and a white _____________________ 2 See 18 U.S.C. § 1113. 3 U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3 (“No . . . ex post facto Law shall be passed.”). 2 Case: 25-50144 Document: 99-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 No. 25-50144 tank top, and he appeared “maybe lost or confused,” as though “u