United States v. Roy

Opinion

Case: 25-30285 Document: 78-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-30285 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 1, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Charles Roy,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:21-CR-82-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Charles Roy was sentenced to a total of 160 months in prison after pleading guilty to drug and firearm offenses. He appeals, contending the district court erred by counting a prior Louisiana conviction for simple robbery as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). He argues that

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30285 Document: 78-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2026

No. 25-30285

Louisiana simple robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence because it encompasses conduct that is merely reckless or negligent. Our review is de novo. See United States v. Enrique-Ascencio, 857 F.3d 668, 672 (5th Cir. 2017). Not all general intent crimes in Louisiana can be committed with a reckless or negligent mental state. United States v. Lanaute, 169 F.4th 641, 644 (5th Cir. 2026), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 10, 2026) (No. 25-7615). And while Roy maintains that Louisiana cases confirm that an unintended use or threatened use of force can support a conviction for simple robbery, the cases he cites fall short. As Roy fails to show a “realistic probability” that Louisiana would apply its simple robbery statute to reckless or negligent acts, we conclude the district court did not err in treating his robbery conviction as a crime of violence under the force clause. United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218, 222 (5th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1); Lanaute, 169 F.4th at 645-46. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.