FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 25, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15190 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 1 3 6 - CR - J - 9 9 HTS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S E D R I C K B E RN A R D P R I C E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M a y 25, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:We note at the outset that Price did not raise a c onstitut ional objection to his sentence 1 either in the district c ourt or in his initi al brief on appeal. There fore , any argument reg ardingthe constitutionality

of his sentenc e in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005) ha s been a bandoned. SeeUnited States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1261 (11th Cir. 2005) (holdingthat appellant a bandoned his B ooker c laim on appeal by not raisinga timely

constitutional challeng e to his sentencein his ini tial brief) ; United States v. L ebovitz, 401 F.3d 1263, ___ (11th Cir. 2005) (de clining to address impac t of Booker where appellant did not raise a c onstitut ional challeng e to the application of the SentencingGuidelines to his case) 2 S edri ck B ernard P ri ce appeal s hi s 30-m on th sent ence i m po se d aft erhe pl ed gui l ty t o be i ng ac onvi c t e d f e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) a nd 924( a ) ( 2) . H e a r gue s tha thi s pr i ors t a t e c onvi c t i on f or c a rry i ng ac onc e a l e d f

i r e a rm s houl d notbe c ons i de r e d a“ c r i m e of vi ol e nc e ” f

or purpos e s of

e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e unde rU . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 4) ( A ) . F orthe r e a s o n s s t a t e d mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. 1 A cc ordi ng t o the un di sput ed fa ct s i n the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt ( “ P S I ” ) , P r i c e w a s s t oppe d by apa tr ol of f i c e r , f ound t o be dr i vi ng w i th a suspended l i ce nse, and arr es t ed. T here af t er , a c on se nsual se ar ch of hi s c arre veal ed tw o l i ve 5. 45 ca l i ber r ou nd sa nd a C N R om arm ri fl e, m od el A K 74 , m anufactured i n R om ani a. P ri ce t ol d o ff i ce rs thathi s f

i ance é, K i m berl y S trauch, had p urchas ed the gun a nd a tt e m pt e d, appa r e nt l y uns uc c e s s f ul l y , t o r e s e l l the gun ba c k t o the ori gi nal se l l er . A tthe t i m e of hi s a rr es t , P ri ce previ ou sl y had been conv i ct ed of, in te ra lia , F lo r id as ta te c h a r g e s o f c a rry in g ac o n c e a le d f

ir e a rm . T h e P S I c a l c u l a t e d P r i c e ’ s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l a t2 0 , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G.3

§ 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 4) ( A ) , w hi c h appl i e s w he n the of f e ns e i nvol ve s af

i r e a rm a nd “ the de f e nda ntc om m i tt e d a ny pa r tof the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e s ubs e que ntt o s us t a i ni ng one fe l on y c on vi ct i on of ei ther acr i m e of vi ol ence or a c on trol l ed subst ance offe nse. ” U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 4) ( A ) . P r i c e w a s the n gi ve n a3- l e ve l r e duc t i on f or ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty pursuantt o U . S . S . G . §§ 3E 1. 1(a) -( b), for at ot al offe nse l evel of 17 . P ri ce had fi ve cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s, pl ac i ng hi m i n cri m i nal hi s t ory c a t e gory I I I , w hi c h, a tof f e ns e l e ve l 17, pr ovi de d f oragui de l i ne s r a nge of 3 0 -3 7 m o n th s. P r i c e ’ s s ol e obj e c t i on t o the P S I w a s tha thi s pr i orc onvi c t i on f orc a rry i ng a c onc e a l e d f

i r e a rm s houl d notbe c ons i de r e d a“ c r i m e of vi ol e nc e ” f

orpurpos e s of U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A ) , a n d h is o f f e n s e le v e l w a s , th e r e f

o r e , in c o rr e c tly c a l c ul a t e d. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, P r i c e r e i t e r a t e d hi s l e ga l obj e c t i on t o the cal cu l at i o n o f h i s o ffen se l ev el an d resu l t i n g g u i d el i n es ran g e. H e d i d n o tco n t est th a th e h a d ac o n v i c t i o n f o rc a rry i n g ac o n c e a l e d f i r e a rm, b u ta r g u e d th a tth e c r i me of ca rryi ng a c on ce al ed fi re arm di d n otm ee tthe defi ni t i on of “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” unde r§ 2K 2. 1. N e ve r the l e s s , P r i c e c onc e de d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw a s bound by pr e c e de ntt o de c i de the i s s ue a ga i ns thi m . T he c our tove rrul e d P r i c e ’ s obj e c t i on and sent ence d P ri ce t o 3 0 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . N o o ther obj ec t i on s w er e l odge d.4

O n app ea l , P ri ce ar gu es thathi s bas e off ense l evel w as i ncorrec t l y c al cul at ed a t20 pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 4) ( A ) be c a us e hi s pr i orc onvi c t i on f or ca rryi ng a c on ce al ed fi re arm i s i ncorrec t l y c on si dere d a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” und er thi s C ou rt ’ s pre ce dent . H e a ckno w l edges thatw e a l re ady have rul ed, i n U ni t ed S t at es v. G i l bert , 13 8 F . 3d 13 71 (11th C i r. 19 98 ), thatca rryi ng a c on ce al ed fi re arm is c o n s id e r e d a“c r im e o f v io le n c e ,” b u t r e s p e c tf

u lly d is a g r e e s w ith o u ra n a ly s is a nd de c i s i on. I n s uppor tof hi s a r gum e nt , P r i c e a r gue s tha tnothi ng i n the F l or i da s t a tut e c r i m i na l i z i ng c a rry i ng ac onc e a l e d f i r e a rm r e qui r e s pr oof

of a n e l e m e nt in v o lv in g “c o n d u c t th a t p r e s e n ts as e r io u s p o te n tia l r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju ry to another” and, thu s, i tshou l d n otbe consi dere d a cr i m e of vi ol ence . H e a rgues that a“c r im e o f

v io le n c e ” s h o u ld r e q u ir e as h o w in g o f a n in te n t to in

ju r e o rc o m m it v io le n c e , a n d ac ir c u it s p lit e x is ts o n th e is s u e , m a k in g it r ip e f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . F i nal l y, P ri ce ar gu es thatthe S t at e of F l ori da decri m i nal i ze s c arry i ng a c on ce al ed fi re arm throu gh i ss uance of a perm i t , and o ur i nt erpret at i on of “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” l ead s t o p o t en t i al l y an o m al o u s resu l t s. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s de novo a nd i t s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T ruj i l l o, 146 F . 3d 838, 847 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). A di stri ctcourt ’ s i nt erpret at i on s of the gu i del i nes a re re vi ew ed d e n o v o . G ilb e r t, 1 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 2 .5

P ursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 1(a) (4)( A ), a def endant ’ s bas e off

ense l evel for a proh i bi t ed tra nsac t i on i nv ol vi ng a f i re arm i s s etat20 i f “ the defendantcom m i tt ed a ny pa r tof

the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e s ubs e que ntt o s us t a i ni ng one f e l ony c onvi c t i on of e i th e rac r i m e o f

v i o l e n c e o rac o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o f f e n s e . ” U. S . S . G. § 2 K 2 . 1 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A ) . “ [ C] r i me o f v i o l e n c e , ” a s u s e d i n § 2 K 2 . 1 , i s g i v e n th e s a me m e a n in g a s th a t te rm in § 4 B 1 .2 ( a ) a n d A p p lic a tio n N o te 1 o f th e C o m m e n ta ry to § 4 B 1 .2 . U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .5 ) . U n d er § 4 B 1 . 2 , “ cri m e o f v i o l en ce” m ean s: [ A ] ny of f e ns e unde rf

e de r a l ors t a t e l a w , puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm e nt for at erm exce edi ng on e y ea r, that(1) has as an el em entthe use, a tt e m pt e d us e , orthr e a t e ne d us e of phy s i c a l f

or c e a ga i ns tthe pe r s on of a nothe r , or( 2) i s bur gl a ry of adw e l l i ng, a r s on, ore xt or t i on, i nv ol ves use of expl osi ves, or otherw i se i nv ol ves c on du ctthat pres ent s ase ri ou s r i sk of ph ys i ca l i nj ury t o ano ther. U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 2( a ) ( 1) - ( 2) . T he C om m e nt a ry f ur the rc l a r i f

i e s tha t“ c r i m e of v i o l en ce” i n cl u d es co n d u ctth at , b y i t s v ery n atu re, p resen t s a seri o u s p o t en t i al ri sk of i nj ury t o ano ther. U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 1). I n G i l be r t , w e he l d tha tthe de f e nda nt ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i on f orc a rry i ng a conceal ed w eapo n u nd erF l ori da l aw fi tthe defi ni t i on of “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” und er § 4B 1. 2( a ) be c a us e “ c a rry i ng ac onc e a l e d w e apon i s c onduc ttha tpos e s as e r i ous po t ent i al ri sk of i nj ury. ” G i l bert , 13 8 F . 3d at13 72 . M ore r ec ent l y, i n U ni t ed S t a t e s v. A da m s , w e r e i t e r a t e d ourhol di ng i n G i l be r ttha tthe c r i m e of c a rry i ng aHonora ble Robert B . Propst, United States District Judg e for the Northern District of 2 Alabama , sitti ngby

designation. 6 c onc e a l e d w e apon c ons t i tut e s a“ c r i m e of vi ol e nc e ” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the c a r e e rof f e nde rpr ovi s i ons f

ound i n U . S . S . G . §§ 4B 1. 1, 4B 1. 2. A da m s , 316 F . 3d 11 96 , 11 97 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). W e not ed expl i ci t l y that , w hi l e the defendantthere ( a s he r e ) obj e c t e d tha thi s c onc e a l e d w e apons of f e ns e s w e r e not“ c r i m e s of vi ol e nc e , ” hi s obj e c t i on w a s c ontr a ry t o the hol di ng i n G i l be r ta nd w oul d notbe r e v is ite d . I d . a t 1 1 9 7 n .1 . W e e m p h a s iz e d th a t “[ t]h e la w o f th is c ir c u it is ‘e m p h a tic ’ th a t o n ly th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o rth is c o u r t s ittin g e n b a n c c a n ju d ic ia lly ove rrul e apr i orpa ne l de c i s i on. ” I d. c i t i ng C a r gi l l v. T urpi n, 120 F . 3d 1366, 1386 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). W hi l e i n A dam s, a di ss ent i ng j ud ge di sa gree d w i th the ho l di ng i n G i l bert a nd ur ge d the C our tt o hol d a n e n ba nc he a r i ng i n l i ghtof ac i r c ui ts pl i ton the i s s u e o f wh e th e rc a rry i n g ac o n c e a l e d we ap o n c o n s t i tu t e s a“ c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e , ” we d ecl i n ed t o d o so . Id . at1 2 0 1 -0 3 (P ro p st , J. d i ssen t i n g ); U n i t ed S t at es v . A d am s, 2 62 F ed. A pp x. 92 3 (11 th C i r. F eb. 25 , 20 03 ) ( t abl e) . T hu s, t o d at e, nei ther a n en ba nc pa ne l northe S upr e m e C our tha s ove rrul e d the hol di ngs i n G i l be r ta nd A d am s. A cco rd i n g l y, a co n v i ct i o n fo r carrying a co n ceal ed w eap o n rem ai n s a

“ c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e ” f

orpurpos e s of

U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 2, a nd l i ke w i s e , § 2K 2. 1, a nd a three -j ud ge panel ca nn otov errul e tho se ho l di ng s. P ri ce ’ s s ent ence i s, there fore ,7

a f f i rm e d. AF F I RME D.