Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11300/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11300-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus Chatman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11300

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00012-MW-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARCUS CHATMAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(July 24, 2015)

USCA11 Case: 14-11300 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 1 of 2
2

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Chatman appeals his 180-month prison sentence, imposed after a 

jury convicted him of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Chatman argues the district court erred by 

sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 

U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a), based on his prior convictions for 

possession with intent to sell cocaine, in violation of Florida Statutes § 893.13(1). 

Chatman contends his prior § 893.13 convictions do not qualify as 

ACCA-predicate “serious drug offense[s]” under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) because they 

lack a mens rea requirement. 1

 Chatman’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed 

by United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1264, 1267–68 (11th Cir. 2014), which 

held convictions for possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, in 

violation of § 893.13(1), qualify as “serious drug offense[s]” under 

§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 1

 We review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA “serious drug 

offense.” United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2009).

USCA11 Case: 14-11300 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 2 of 2