[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 29 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cr-0 00 17 -MM H-JR K-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us ANTHONYJEROM E TERRY, a.k .a. Fli p, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 6, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 1 of 15Ant ho ny Jero m e Terry app eal s h is 19 8- m on thto ta l s en te nc e, im po se d a fte r he pl edgu il ty to p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne an d p os se ss io n o f a fir earm in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e. He arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t h is pri orFlo rid a co nv ic ti on forlewdan d l as ci vi ou s b at te ry on a m in orco ns ti tu te d acri m e o f vi ol en ce s uf fic ie ntto supp ort h is care er-o ffen de r en ha nc em en t. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm Terry ’s sen te nc e. I. Terry pl edgu il ty to p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne , invi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(C) (“ Co un t Th ree” ), an d p os se ss io n o f a fir earm in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c) (“ Co un t Fo ur ”). His pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ) in di cat ed th at , bef or e co m m it ti ng th e in st an t o ffen se s, Terry ha d s us ta in edFlo rid a co nv ic ti on s fo r le wd o r la sc iv io us ba tt ery on a m in oran d fo r sa le or d el iv ery of co cai ne . Reg ard in g the ba tt ery co nv ic ti on , th e PSI s ta te d t ha t, i n 2 00 2, Terry went in to a 14 -y ear- ol d’s b edro om an d fo rcedhe r to ha ve sex with h im . Furt he r, it st at edth ata m ed ic al ev al ua ti on of t he vi ct im sh owe d t ha t s he ha d “ te ari ng , ab ras io n[ s,] andlac erat io ns ne ar h er v ag in a.” The PSI i nd ic at edth atTerry qu al ifi edas acare er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1, re su lt in g i n a n o ffen se lev el of 3 2, b ecau se he ha d t wo p rio r co nv ic ti on s 2 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 2 of 15fo r ei th er a “ co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se ” o r a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce,” s pe ci fic al ly,

hi s p rio r Fl or id a co cai ne an d b atte ry co nv ic ti on s. Terry recei ve d a3-l ev el reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a) a nd(b) , res ul ti ng ina to ta l o ffen se lev el of a29 . Terry ’s cla ss ifi cat io n a s a c aree r of fen de r pl acedhi m

in to a cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory VI. As to th e fi rearm

off en se un de r § 92 4( c), Terry was subjec t t o am an da to ry m in im um 60 -m on th sen te nc e, to run co ns ecu ti ve ly to an y

othe r te rm

of i m pr is on m en t. Bec au se Terry was acare er of fen de r wit h aco nv ic ti onun de r § 9 24 (c), the ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge in crea se d t o 2 62 to 32 7 m on th s und er U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(c )(2 ) an d (c )(3 ). Terry ob jecte d t o t he PSI o n t he gro un d t ha t h is Flo rid a co nv ic ti on forlewd an d l as ci vi ou s b at te ry , invi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 8 00 .04 (4 ), was n ota pr op er pr ed ic at e fo r th e car eer- of fen de r en ha nc em en t b ecau se itwas n ota cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . He ass ert edth at Uni te d Sta tes v. Har ris , 60 8 F .3d12 22 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) he ldth ata Fl or id a co nv ic ti onforsex ua l ba tt ery of a ch il d u nd er the ag e o f 16 do es no t fa ll withi n t he res idua l cl au se of t he Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) be cau se itim po se s s tri ctli ab il it y

an d d oe s no t n eces sa ril y

in vo lv e “pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve co nduc t.” As su ch , hi s p rio r ba tt ery co nv ic ti on , whi ch is a stric t l iabi li ty offen se , do es no t qua li fy as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce b ecau se itdo es no t re qu ire sp eci fic in te ntto us e fo rce a ga in st 3 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 3 of 15an ot he r pe rs on . Furt he r, reg ard in g t he cir cu m st an ces of h is pri orco nv ic ti on , Terry

ob jecte d t o t he PSI’s fac tu al ass ert io n t ha t h e “ wen t i nt o t he be dr oo m of h is gi rlf rie nd ’s chi ldan d fo rcedhe r to ha ve sex ua l i nt erco ur se .” Terry fil eda se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , rei te rat in g t ha t h e d idno t qua li fy as a car eer o ffen de r. He arg ue d t ha t, u nd er o ur“ cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ” to rev ie w, th e di st ric t co urt s ho ul d n otco ns id er an yth in g o th er tha n t he factof c on vi ct io n a ndth e el em en ts of t he off

en se . Mor eo ve r, ev enun de r th e “ m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ,” he do es no t qua li fy as acare er o ffen de r be cau se he ne ve r adm it te d t o an y all eg at io ns co nc ern in g fo rci bl e se x dur in g h is st at e p le a p ro ceed in gs . At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , Terry arg ue d t ha t, al th ou gh ou r de ci si on in Har ris “ se em in gl y

rai s[ ed ] anin vi ta ti on ” to co ns id er the sp eci fic s o f th e un de rlyin g o ffen se , th e Supr em e Co urt h as est ab li sh edth at , if the st atut e m ay be rev ie wedun de r th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch ba se d o nl y onth e jud gm en t an d e le m en ts of th e o ffen se , th ere i s n o n eedto co ns id er an y furth er ev id en ce o r do cu m en ts . Howev er, h e arg ue d, ev enap pl y in g t he m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , th e co urt was no t p erm it te d t o c on si de r “ he ars ay po li ce re po rts ” u nd er Sh ep ar d v . Uni te d Sta tes , 54 4 U.S. 1 3, 1 25 S.Ct . 12 54 , 16 1 L.Ed .2d20 5 (2 00 5) . He ass ert ed th atth e g ov ern m en t re li edon st at em en ts th atwere m ad e dur in g Terry ’s st at e p le a he ari ng , su gg es ti ng th atth e o ffen se ha d i nv ol ve d v io le nc e, bu t t ho se st at em en ts 4 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 4 of 15m erel y

reci te d a ll eg at io ns fro m

th e p ol ic e rep ort. Terry’ s p ub li c d efen de r in th at pr oc eed in g d idno t o bjec t t o t he factua l b as is forhi s p le a, bu t o nl y forth e p ur

po se s of hi s s ta te pl ea, an d a s s uc h, h e arg ue d t ha t h is in te ract io n wi th th e st at e co urt was in su ffi ci en t t o c on st itut e anadm is si on to an y vi ol en t ac ts . The go ve rn m en t the n i ntro du cedsev eral do cu m en ts in to ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng co pi es of t he st at e in fo rm at io n a ndjud gm en t, Terry ’s gu il ty ple a, an d t he pl ea he ari ng tra ns cri pt . Duri ng th e st at e p le a h eari ng , th e p ro se cu to r de sc rib edth e factua l b as is forth e p le a, st at in g: []Terry , di d e ng ag e in sex ua l ac ti vi ty w it h t he vi ct im , a pe rs on 12 y ears of a ge or o ld er b utles s t ha n 1 6 years o f ag e, by pla ci ng hi s pe ni s i n o r onhe r va gi na . Sh e was at t he ti m e 1 4 years o ld . Vict im rep orte d t ha t s he was, i n fact , rap ed . There was aCPT m ed ic al ev al ua ti on do ne onth is vi ct im , an d s he di d h av e te ars an d abr as io ns an d l acer at io ns ne ar h er v ag in a to co rro bo rat e th atth ere h adbe enso m e type o f pe ne tra ti on to he r. Andth ere was als o s em enrem ov edfro m he r va gi na , andth atwas se ntoff to Flo rid a Dep art m en t o f Law Enfo rcem en t t o b e te st ed . The st at e co urt as ke d Terry ’s def en se co un se l i f he ha d a ny ob jecti on to th e st at em en t o f fac ts , andco un se l re sp on de d, “Notforth e p ur po se s o f th is pl ea.” Terry arg ue d t ha t, u nl ik e th e Fl or id a b at te ry st atut e atis su e in Uni te d Sta tes v. Jo hn so n , __

U.S. __ , 13 0 S .Ct. 1 26 5, 1 76 L.Ed.2d1 (2 01 0) , whi ch co ul d b e vi ol at edin nu m ero us way s, i nc lu di ng to uc hi ng , Terry was c harg edon ly w it h

5 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 5 of 15se xu al act iv ity , no t s ex ua l b at te ry . Thu s, the vi ct im ’s rep ort o f be in g rape d was

no t n eces sa ry

forpl ea p ur

po se s. As a p rel im in ary m atte r, th e co urt re jecte d Terry ’s con te nt io n t ha t i t was requi redto fol lo w th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch . Ins te ad , Sh ep ar d an d Jo hn so n in st ru ctth at , if the cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch do es no t re so lv e th e is su e, th e co urt m ay th entu rnto th e m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , un de r whi ch th e co urt m us t de te rm in e whe th er the go ve rn m en t’s Sh ep ard-ap pr ov eddo cum en ts est ab li sh th at th e “ de fen dant ’s con du ctin vo lv edpu rp os efu l, v io le nc e, an d a gg res si ve co nduc t.” The co urt n ot edth at , in Har ris , un li ke th e in st an t ca se , th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e co urt t o m ak e th atde te rm in at io n. Here , th e g ov ern m en t’s Sh ep ard-ap pr ov eddo cu m en ts , in cl ud in g t he rel ev an t p orti on s o f th e st at e p le a he ari ng , were s uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh th atTerry ’s pri orco nv ic ti on fel l wi th in th e de fin it io n o f a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er § 4B 1.1 an d § 4B 1.2 . The co urt fo un d i t rel ev an t t ha t Terry

ha d c omm it te d afor ci bl e se x o ffen se , whi ch is sp eci fic al ly enum erat edin th e ap pl ic at io n n ot es to § 4 B1 .2. Ho wev er, u lt im at el y , th e co urt ap pl ie d t he m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch in fin di ng th atTerry ’s off en se fel l wit hi n t he care er o ffen de r gu id el in e’s res idua l cl au se , as a n o ffen se in vo lv in g co nduc t t ha t p res en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r, an d, as anoff en se in vo lv in g p ur

po se fu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve co nduc t.

6 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 6 of 15The co urt ad op te d t he gu id el in e cal cu la ti on s as co nt ai ne d i n t he PSI, an d

no te d t ha t Terry

face d agu id el in e ran ge of 2 62 to 32 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Terry m ov edfora do wnwar d v ari an ce b as edon th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or s, i nc lu di ng hi s ef fo rts to ass is t t he go ve rn m en t. Inco ns id erat io n o f Terry’ s at te m pt s t o c oo pe rat e wit h t he go ve rn m en t, the co urt g ran te d the do wnwar d v ari an ce an d i m po se d a19 8- m on th to ta l s en te nc e, co ns is ti ng of 1 38 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t as to Co un t Th ree anda co ns ecu ti ve 60 - m on th sen te nc e as to Co un t Fo ur . II. W e rev ie w de no vo whet he r a p art ic ul ar co nv ic ti on is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo ckl ey , 63 2 F .3d12 38 , 12 40 (1 1t h C ir.) , cer t. d

en ie d , 13 2 S .Ct. 2 57 (20 11 ). Pu rs uantto § 4 B1 .1, a d efen da ntis co ns id ereda “ care er o ffen de r” an d subjec t t o an e nh an cedsen te nc e if : (1 ) th e d efen da ntwas a t l eas t ei gh te eny ears ol d a t t he ti m e th e de fen da ntco m

m it te d t he in st an t o ffen se of c on vi ct io n; (2) th e in st an t of fen se of c on vi ct io n i s a f

el on y th atis eit he r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se ; an d (3 ) th e d efen da ntha s atlea sttwo pr io r fel on y

co nv ic ti on s o f ei th er a cr im e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll ed subs ta nc e o ffen se . U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(a ). The t erm “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” i s d efi ne d i n t he Sen te nc in g

7 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 7 of 15Gui de li ne s as an y off en se pu ni sh ab le by m or e th anon e y ear o f im pr is on m en t tha t: (1 ) ha s as anele m en t the us e, at te m pt edus e, orth reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t the pe rs on of a no th er, o r (2 ) is bu rg lary

of adwel li ng , ars on , or e xt orti on , in vo lv es us e o f ex pl os iv e, orothe rwis e in vo lv es co nduc t t ha t p res en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r. U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ). W e h av e n ot edth at , whi le no t t he same, the de fin it io ns of acri m e o f vi ol en ce i n § 4B 1.2 an d avi ol en t fe lo ny in t he ACCA are “ vi rtu al ly ide nt ic al .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ar ch er , 53 1 F .3d13 47 , 13 50 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Acco rd in gl y , de ci si on s an al yzi ng whet he r anoff en se is a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e ACCA pr ov id e g ui da nc e whe n d et erm in in g wh ethe r anoff en se qu al ifi es as a“ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” u nd er the care er o ffen de r gu id el in e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Al exa nd er , 60 9 F.3 d 1 25 0, 1 25 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 78 3 (2 01 1) .

“ Und er § 4B 1.2 of the gu id el in es , any sta te or f ed eral off en se th atis pu ni sh ab le by m or e th anon e y ear o f im pr is on m en t ca n b e a cri m e o f vi ol en ce i f it fit s wi th in on e o f th ree c at eg or ie s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. C hi tw oo d , 67 6 F .3d97 1, 9 75 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) . The fi rs t ca te go ry in cl ud es cri m es th atha ve “ as anele m en t t he us e, at te m

pt edus e, orth reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t t he pe rs onof an ot he r.” U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a )(1 ). The s eco ndcat eg ory in cl ud es th e en um erat ed

8 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 8 of 15cri m es of “ bu rg la ry of adwel li ng , ars on , or e xt orti on ” an d t ho se in vo lv in g t he

“us e o f ex pl os iv es .” § 4 B1 .2(a )(2 ). The t hi rdcat eg ory , so m et im es refe rredto as res idua l cl au se cri m es , in cl ud es th os e th at“ ot he rwis e in vo lv e[ ] con du ctth at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an ot he r.” Id. ; Ch itwo od , 67 6 F.3 d a t 9 75 . In ad di ti on , th e co m m en ta ry to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es elabo rat es th ata cri m e o f vi ol en ce al so in cl ud es sev eral sp eci fic cri m es , in cl ud in g fo rci bl e se x o ffen se s. Se e U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2, co m m en t. (n .1). The re ar e two way s i n wh ic h we a na lyze whet he r a cri m e can fal l wi th in th e res idua l cl au se of § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) . Ch itwo od , 67 6 F .3dat 9 75 . The fi rs t i s t he cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , un de r whi ch th e co urt co ns id ers whet he r th e el em en ts of t he of fen se are o f th e type tha t wo ul d ju st ify its in cl us io n i n t he de fin it io n o f a cri m e of vi ol en ce, wit ho utin qu iri ng in to th e sp eci fic co nduc t o f th e p art ic ul ar o ffen de r. Id. at 9 75 -7 6. Th e se co ndway to id en ti fy

th e sp eci fic off

en se at i ss ue is an ex cep ti on to th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , referredto as t he “ m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch .” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa nt le , 63 7 F .3d11 72 , 11 75 (11 th Cir .), cer t. de ni ed , 13 2 S .Ct. 1 09 1 (2 01 2) . Cou rts m ay ap pl y th e m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch“ whe n t he law u nd er wh ic h ade fen da ntha s b een co nv ic te d c on ta in s di ffer en t s ta tu to ry

ph ras es —s om e o f whi ch qu al ify as cri m es of v io le nc e an d s om e of whi ch do no t.” Id. (qu ot at io n a ndalt erat io n o m it te d) ; Ch itwo od , 67 6 F .3dat 9 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 9 of 1597 6. Mo reo ve r, whe n app lying th e m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , sen te nc in g

co urts , un de r Sh ep ar d , are “ ge ne ral ly lim it edto ex am in in g t he st atut ory de fin it io n, ch arg in g d oc um en t, wri tt enpl ea ag reem en t, tran sc rip t o f th e p le a co ll oquy, and an y ex pl ic itfactua l fi nd in g b y th e tr ia l ju dg e to whi ch th e d efen da ntass en te d.” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa lo min o Ga rc ia , 60 6 F .3d13 17 , 13 28 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) (ap pl y in g U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2). The Supr em e Co urt, i n Jo hn so n , hel d t ha t, fo r a p rio r co nv ic ti on to qu al ify as a vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e el em en ts claus e o f th e ACCA, the off en se m us t h av e anele m en t o f “ vi ol en t fo rce” ag ai ns t t he pe rs on of a no th er. Jo hn so n , 55 9 U.S. at

__ , 13 0 S .Ct. at12 71 . The Co urt d efi ne d v io le ntfor ce as “ fo rce c ap ab le of cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or i njury to an ot he r pe rs on .” Id. In s o d oi ng , th e Co urt reject edth e es tabl is he d c omm on -la w m ean in g o f “ fo rce,” whi ch in cl ud edev enth e sl ig ht es t o ffen si ve to uc hi ng , bec au se su chanin te rp ret at io n d idno t fi t t he st atut ory co nt ex t. Id. at _

_, 1 30 S.Ct . at 1 27 0- 73 . In Owen s , we app li ed Jo hn so n to an al y ze wh ethe r th e o ffen se s o f se co nd de gr ee rape an d s eco ndde gr ee s od omy un de r Alaba m a la w qu al ifi edas v io le nt fel on ie s u nd er the ele m en ts claus e. Owen s, 67 2 F .3dat 9 70 -7 2. Ap pl y in g t he cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , we no te d tha t “ fo rci bl e co m pu ls io n” was n otrequi redto vi ol at e th e se co ndde gr ee rape an d s eco ndde gr ee s od omy st atut es , andth e 10 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 10 of 15ph y si cal requi rem en t o f th e st atut es requi redon ly sli gh t p en etrat io n wi th a no nco ns en ti ng vi ct im , du e to ag e o r m en ta l i nc ap aci ty. Id. at97 1. Ho wev er, wh il e ex cl ud in g aba tt ery co nv ic ti on fro m sat is fy in g t he ele m en ts claus e as a cat eg or ic al m at te r, th e Jo hn so n de ci si on lef t o pe n t he po ss ib il it y

th ata ba tt ery co nv ic ti on m ay sa ti sf y th e el em en ts claus e u nd er the m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa chby loo ki ng to th e rec or d o f th e co nv ic ti onto de te rm in e if vi ol en t fo rce was anele m en t. Se e Jo hn so n , 55 9 U.S. at__ , 13 0 S .Ct. at12 73 . Howev er, the “ ab se nc e o f rec or ds ” of te n frus tra te s t he ap pl ic at io n o f th e m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch . Id. Terry was co nv ic te d u nd er the 20 02 ve rs io n o f Fl a. St at . § 8 00 .04 (4 ), whi ch de fin edlewdor l as ci vi ou s b at te ry ona m in or

as: A per so n wh o: (a) En ga ge s i n s ex ua l ac ti vi ty w ith ape rs on 12 y ears of a ge or o ld er bu t l es s t ha n 1 6 years o f ag e; or (b ) Enc ou rag es , for ces , or e nt ic es an y pe rs onles s t ha n 1 6 years o f ag e to en ga ge in sad om as oc hi st ic ab us e, se xu al be st ia li ty, pr os ti tu ti on , or an y ot he r actin vo lv in g s ex ua l ac ti vi ty. Fl a.St at . § 8 00 .04 (4 ) (2 00 0) . Und er Fl a. St at . § 8 00 .04 (2 ) an d (3 ), th e v ic ti m ’s co ns en t an d t he pe rp etrat or ’s ig no ran ce o f th e v ic ti m ’s age are n otde fen se s. In Har ris , we add res se d wh ethe r a p rio r ve rs io n o f th e sa m e st atut e, Fl a. St at . § 8 00 .04 (3 )(1 99 6) , con st itut eda vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA’s res idua l

11 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 11 of 15cl au se . Har ris , 60 8 F .3dat 1 22 5- 27 . The 1 99 6 v ers io n o f th e st atut e st at edth at“ a

pe rs on who [c]omm it s an actde fin edas s ex ua l b at te ry un de r [Fl a. St at . §] 79 4.0 11 (1 )(h ) up on an y ch il d u nd er the ag e o f 16 y ears . . . is gu il ty of a fel on y of th e se co ndde gr ee.” Fl a. St at . § 8 00 .04 (3 ) (1 99 6) . Sex ua l b at te ry m ean t “ or al , an al , or v ag in al pe ne tra ti on by, orun io n wi th , th e se xu al org anof a no th er.” Har ris , 60 8 F .3dat 1 22 5. We em pl oyed the cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to de te rm in e ho w off en se s und er tha t s ta tu te ord in ari ly w ou ldbe co m m it te d. Id. at 1 22 7- 29 . In do in g s o, we n ot ed , “ The pro pe r in qu iry is wh ethe r th e co nduc t en co m pa ss edby th e el em en ts of t he off

en se , inth e o rd in ary cas e, pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri sk of in jury to an ot he r.” Id. at12 28 . The ri skpo se d m us t b e si m il ar i n k in d a nd de gr ee t o t he ris ks po se d b y th e en um erat edcri m es . Id. at12 27 (qu ot at io n a nd al te rat io n o m it te d) . Spe ci fic al ly, we as k wh ethe r th e co nduc t atis su e is

“pu rp os efu l, v io le ntan d a gg res si ve ,” orwhet he r “ itis a m or e p as si ve cri m e o f in act io n.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Usi ng th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , we det erm in edth atsex ua l b at te ry of a m in oralwa y s p os eda subs ta nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury. Id. at12 30 . W e n ot ed th atth e Fl or id a st atut e atis su e “ co ve r[ed ] a wid e arr ay of c on du ct ,” im

po si ng st ric t l iabi li ty for s om e v io la ti on s, b utals o c ov eri ng “ co nduc t tha t i s und oubt ed ly in te nt io na l o r pu rp os efu l.” Id. at 1 33 2. Nev erthe le ss , we hel d t ha t, as a stric t 12 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 12 of 15li ab il it y

off en se th atco ve redbo th vi ol en t an d n on -v io le ntco nduc t, the Flo rid a st atut e was no t s im il ar i n k in d t o t he enum erat edoff en se s t o c on st itut e a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the res idua l cl au se . Id . at12 30 -3 3. In reac hi ng th is ho ld in g, we em ph as iz edth atwe ha d c on si de redth e st atut e cat eg or ic al ly, an d “ witho utfurth er sp eci fic s” ab ou t the fact s o f th e o ffen se . Id. at12 32 -3 3. The di stric t co urt d idno t err in fin di ng th at , un de r th e m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , Terry ’s pri orco nv ic ti on forlewdan d l as ci vi ou s b at te ry on a m in or , un de r § 8 00 .04 (4 ), co ns ti tu te d acri m e o f vi ol en ce s uf fic ie ntto supp ort h is care erof fen de r en ha nc em en t. Terry corre ct ly not es th at , un de r th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , we ha ve he ldth ata pr io r ve rs io n o f th e sa m e o ffen se di d n otqu al ify as a cr im e o f vi ol en ce. Se e Har ris , 60 8 F .3dat 1 22 8- 33 . The d is tri ctco urt, h owe ve r, was pe rm it te d t o app ly the m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa chbe cau se Terry ’s st atut e o f co nv ic ti on , § 8 00 .04 (4 ), co nt ai ns di ffer en t s ta tu to ry ph ras es —s om e o f whi ch th at qu al ify as cri m es of v io le nc e an d s om e o f whi ch do no t. Se e Pan tl e , 63 7 F .3dat 11 75 ; Ch itwo od , 67 6 F .3dat 9 76 . In fa ct , in Har ris , we st at edth atFlo rid a’s le wd an d l as ci vi ou s b at te ry

st atut e can im

po se st ric t l iabi li ty, bu t i t can a ls o c riminal iz e in te nt io na l co nduc t. Har ris , 60 8 F .3dat 1 23 2- 33 . Mor eo ve r, we in di cat edth atwe ha d app li edth e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch be cau se we lac ke d s pe ci fic s re ga rd in g t he ci rcu m st an ces un de rlyin g t he pri orco nv ic ti on . Se e id. at 1 23 3 (h ol di ng th at , “ a 13 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 13 of 15vi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 8 00 .04 (3 )(1 99 6) ge ne ral ly—wi th ou t f ur th er sp eci fi cs — is no t a c rime of v io le nc e”) ( em ph as is ad de d) . Unl ik e in Har ris , th e d is tri ctco urt h ere h adacce ss to “ sp eci fic s” reg ard in g Terry’ s p rio r co nv ic ti on , beyon d m erel y th e st atut ory

lan gu ag e an d c ha rg in g do cu m en t. The go ve rn m en t s ub m it te d atra ns cri ptof Terry ’s pl ea h eari ng , a Sh ep ard-ap pr ov eddo cu m en t, s ho win g t ha t h e ag reedto th e st at e’s factua l b as is fo r hi s p le a. Se e Pal omi no Gar ci a , 60 6 F .3dat 1 32 8. Sp eci fic al ly, th e st at e pr os ecu to r as se rte d t ha t the 14 -y ear- ol d v ic ti m ha d re po rte d b ei ng rap edan d a m ed ic al ev al ua ti on co rro bo rat edhe r rep ort, s ho win g t ha t s he ha d t ears , abr as io ns , an d l acer at io ns ne ar h er v ag in a. Terry arg ue s t ha t h e ag reedto th e fac tu al ba si s fo r hi s p le a in st at e co urt b ecau se he be li ev edth e g ui lt y pl ea t o b e in hi s b es t in te res t, n otbe cau se he co m m it te d a ny forci bl e act s. No ne th el es s, the di stric t co urt was pe rm it te d t o re ly on t he pl ea h eari ng tra ns cri pt , un de r th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , inde te rm in in g wh ethe r Terry’ s p rio r of fen se co ns ti tu te d a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Se e Pal omi no Gar ci a , 60 6 F .3dat 1 32 8. Th e v ic ti m ’s rep ort th atsh e was rap edan d t he co rro bo rat in g m ed ic al ev id en ce s up po rte d t he co urt’s de te rm in at io n t ha t Terry ’s off en se in vo lv edco nduc t t ha t was “pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , an d a gg res si ve ,” as op po se d t o p as si ve co nduc t t ha t was subjec t t o s tri ctli ab il it y . Se e Har ris , 60 8 F .3dat 1 22 7. 14

Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 14 of 15Terry’ s re li an ce o n Owen s is un av ai li ng be cau se Owen s in vo lv edou r rev ie w

of Alab am a’s se co ndde gr ee rape an d s eco ndde gr ee s od omy st atut es , un de r th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , to de te rm in e if th os e st atut es sat is fie d t he ACCA’s

“ el em en ts claus e.” Se e Owen s , 67 2 F .3dat 9 70 -9 72 . Evenif Terry ’s st atut e o f co nv ic ti on , as acat eg or ic al m at te r, fai ls to sat is fy th e el em en ts claus e o f th e car eer of fen de r gu id el in e, Owen s di d n otpre cl ud e th e d is tri ctco urt fr om em pl oyin g t he m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to de te rm in e whe th er Terry ’s pri oroff en se sat is fie d th e car eer o ffen de r’s res idua l cl au se . Se e Jo hn so n , 55 9 U.S. at__ , 13 0 S .Ct. at 12 73 . Bot h Owen s an d Harris in vo lv edst atut ory rev ie w un de r th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , bu t h ere, t he di stric t co urt p ro pe rly fou ndth at , bec au se itha d fu rth er sp eci fic s re ga rd in g Terry ’s con du ct , itwas p erm it te d t o app ly the m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa chinfin di ng th athi s p rio r co nv ic ti on qu al ifi edas acri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er § 4B 1.2 (a)( 2) ’s res idua l cl au se . In s o d oi ng , th e d is tri ctco urt d id no t err in de te rm in in g t ha t Terry ’s con du ctof r ap in g t he 14 -y ear- ol d v ic ti m , su ch th atsh e h adtea rs an d abr as io ns ne ar h er v ag in a, in vo lv edpu rp os efu l, v io le nt , and ag gr es si ve co nduc t. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Terry ’s sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

15 Case: 12-10291 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 15 of 15