Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11332/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11332-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Perez-Prado
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11332

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20513-UU-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JESUS PEREZ-PRADO, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 9, 2015)

Before MARTIN, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-11332 Date Filed: 03/09/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

The government appeals the 48-month sentence imposed on Jesus PerezPrado after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, Mr. Perez-Prado objected to the base 

offense level calculation contained in his presentence investigation report. 

Specifically, Mr. Perez-Prado argued that a base offense level of 20 pursuant to § 

2K2.1(a)(4)(A) of the Sentencing Guidelines was not merited because his prior 

conviction for possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana under Florida 

Statute § 893.13(1)(a)(2) was not a “controlled substance offense” as defined in § 

4B1.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court agreed, sustaining his 

objection to the PSI and assigning Mr. Perez-Prado the lower base offense level of 

14 pursuant to § 2K2.1(a)(6). On appeal, the government argues that this 

calculation was error. After careful review of the parties’ briefs, we vacate and 

remand for resentencing.

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de 

novo. See United States v. Jerchower, 631 F.3d 1181, 1184 (11th Cir. 2011). We 

review de novo whether a defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as a “controlled 

substance offense” under the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Harris, 

586 F.3d 1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 2009) (reviewing de novo whether a defendant’s 

prior conviction qualified as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines 

for purposes of applying U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A)).

USCA11 Case: 14-11332 Date Filed: 03/09/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant convicted of possession of a

firearm pursuant to § 922(g)(1) ordinarily receives a base offense level of 14. See 

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(6) & comment n.3. In relevant part, the Guidelines provide

that the base offense level increases to 20 if the defendant committed the offense 

subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction for a “controlled substance

offense.” See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). For purposes of applying § 2K2.1(a)(4), 

a “controlled substance offense” is defined as:

an offense under federal or state law, punishable by 

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that 

prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or 

dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit 

substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or 

a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, 

import, export, distribute, or dispense.

Id. at § 4B1.2(b). See § 2K2.1, comment n.1.

In United States v. Smith, No. 13-15227, 2014 WL 7250963, slip op. at 11 

(11th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014), we recently held that a conviction under § 893.13(1) of 

the Florida Statutes constitutes a “controlled substance offense” as defined in § 

4B1.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, we hold, for the reasons 

substantially stated in our opinion in Smith, that it was error for the district court to 

conclude that Mr. Perez-Prado’s 2011 conviction under § 893.13(1)(a)(2) did not 

qualify as a “controlled substance offense” pursuant to § 4B1.2(b). We therefore

vacate Mr. Perez-Prado’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

USCA11 Case: 14-11332 Date Filed: 03/09/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

VACATED AND REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 14-11332 Date Filed: 03/09/2015 Page: 4 of 4