Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-16-11095/USCOURTS-ca11-16-11095-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
John Whitehurst
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 16-11095 ; 16-11097

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:98-cr-00040-MP-GRJ-1; 1:99-cr-00038-MP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN WHITEHURST, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(January 18, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 16-11095 Date Filed: 01/18/2017 Page: 1 of 5
2

John Whitehurst appeals his 60-month sentence imposed by the district court 

after revocation of his supervised release resulting from a prior armed bank 

robbery conviction. On appeal, Whitehurst argues that the district court plainly 

erred by finding that home-invasion robbery in Florida is a “crime of violence” 

under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1)(A)(i). Whitehurst does not contest that he 

committed conduct equivalent to a home-invasion robbery. In Florida, homeinvasion robbery is punishable by a maximum sentence exceeding 20 years’ 

imprisonment. After review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable 

law, we find that the district court did not plainly err by finding that Whitehurst 

committed a Grade A violation. 

We review de novo the legality of a sentence imposed pursuant to revocation 

of a supervised-release term. United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th 

Cir. 2007). However, if a defendant fails to object to an issue at sentencing, this 

Court reviews it for only plain error. United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 

1307 (11th Cir. 2014). To establish plain error, a defendant must show: “(1) error, 

(2) that is plain and (3) that affects substantial rights. If all three conditions are 

met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, 

but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation 

of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 

2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Error is plain if it is clear or obvious under 

USCA11 Case: 16-11095 Date Filed: 01/18/2017 Page: 2 of 5
3

existing law. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777, 

123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993). Lastly, we may affirm for any reason supported by the 

record. United States v. Chitwood, 676 F.3d 971, 975 (11th Cir. 2012). 

A district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised-release term and 

require the defendant to serve an imprisonment term if it finds, by a preponderance 

of evidence, that he violated a condition of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3). “For sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release, the 

recommended sentencing range is based on the classification of the conduct that 

resulted in the revocation and the criminal history category applicable at the time” 

of the defendant’s original sentencing. United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345, 

1348-49 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1, 7B1.4). A “Grade A” 

violation occurs where the violation includes (A) conduct consisting of a federal, 

state, or local offense punishable by more than one year in prison that is a “crime 

of violence” or (B) “any other federal, state, or local offense punishable by a term 

of imprisonment exceeding” 20 years. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1). Importantly, “[t]he 

grade of violation does not depend upon the conduct that is the subject of criminal 

charges or of which the defendant is convicted in a criminal proceeding Rather, 

the grade of violation is to be based on the defendant’s actual conduct.” U.S.S.G. 

§ 7B1.1. comment n.1. 

USCA11 Case: 16-11095 Date Filed: 01/18/2017 Page: 3 of 5
4

A “home-invasion robbery” is “any robbery that occurs when the offender 

enters a dwelling with the intent to commit a robbery, and does commit a robbery 

of the occupants therein.” Fla. Stat. § 812.135(1). If the offender carries a firearm 

or other deadly weapon during the home-invasion robbery, the offense is a felony 

punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment. Id. § 812.135(2)(a). 

Distinct from determining sentencing enhancements under the Armed Career 

Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), or the career offender guideline, when grading a 

violation under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, a district court considers 

the conduct, rather than the conviction. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 comment n.1. Here, it is 

undisputed that Whitehurst committed conduct consistent with a home-invasion 

robbery. A home-invasion robbery is punishable by life imprisonment. Fla. Stat. § 

812.135(2)(a). Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err by finding that 

Whitehurst committed a Grade A violation of his supervised release. 

Lastly, Whitehurst’s argument that this Court may not affirm on the basis of 

U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1)(B) because he was not on notice that the district court 

could make a finding on that alternative ground is unpersuasive. Section 

7B1.1(a)(1)(B)’s presence in the Sentencing Guidelines undercuts his argument. 

Whitehurst’s counsel’s failure to discover and address this provision does not 

deprive this Court of its ability to affirm the district court’s findings for any 

reasons supported by the record.

USCA11 Case: 16-11095 Date Filed: 01/18/2017 Page: 4 of 5
5

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 16-11095 Date Filed: 01/18/2017 Page: 5 of 5