FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 36 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 3- cr-1 40 41 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us PATRICK FR EDERICK W ILLIAMS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 13 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Patric k F red eri ckW il li am s ap pe al s h is li fe s en te nc e fo r po ss es si on with in te ntto di st rib ut e cra ckco cai ne invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . W il li am sco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt: im po se d apro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le sen te nc e; de pr iv edhi m

of due pro ces s b y

fai li ng to co nduc t a d e n ov o re se nt en ci ng fo ll owi ng ou r rem an d i n Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 6 09 F.3d11 68 , 11 69 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); e rredincla ss ifyin g h im as acare er o ffen de r ba se d o n h is co nv ic ti on un de r Fl or id a la w forres is ti ng anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce; an d i m po se d asubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le sen te nc e. I. In20 04 a jury fou ndW il li am s g ui lt y of p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e fiv e g ram s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . At se nt en ci ng , hi s b as e o ffen se lev el was e nh an cedfro m 30 to 37 be cau se he qu al ifi edas acare er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(a ) ba se d o n h is pri or co nv ic ti on s fo r ba tt ery on a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer ( “ BOLEO”) in 19 96 an d po ss es si on with i nt en t t o s el l o r de li ve r co cai ne in19 97 . W il li am s h adals o b een co nv ic te d o f res is ti ng anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce i n 1 99 6, b utth e PSI d idno t re ly on th atco nv ic ti on incla ss ifyin g h im as acare er o ffen de r. Bas edon hi s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory of VI andhi s ad

jus te d o ffen se lev el of 3 7, Will ia m s’ th en m an da to ry

gu id el in es ran ge was 3 60 m on th s t o l ife im pr is on m en t, an d t he di st ric t co urt s en te nc edW il li am s t o l ife . On ap pe al , we affi rm edW il li am s’ con vi ct io n b utrem an de d t he cas e fo r re2se nt en ci ng be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt h adfai le d t o s ta te it s re as on s fo r im po si ng a li fe s en te nc e, whi ch was re qu ire d b y 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( c)(1 ). Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 4 38 F.3d12 72 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ W il li am s I” ). W e reject edth e rem ai nd er o f W il li am s’ arg um en ts . W il li am s I, 4 38 F.3dat 1 27 3– 74 . At hi s fi rs t re-s en te nc in g, Will ia m s o bjec te d t o b ei ng cat eg or iz edas acare er o ffen de r ba se d on th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s i nt erv en in g d eci si oninSta te v. Hearns , 96 1 S o. 2 d 21 1 (F la . 20 07 ), whi ch he ldth atBOLEO was n ota fo rci bl e fel on y un de r Fl or id a’s vi ol en t ca reercri m in al st atut e. The d is tri ctco urt re sp on de d b y no ti ng th atitwas pr oc eed in g p ur su an t t o ali m it edrem an d a ndth atth e o nl y in te rv en in g c ha ng e in fed eral law was Uni te d S ta te s v . Boo ke r, 54 3 U.S. 2 20 , 12 5 S .Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ), whi chha d re nd eredth e g ui de li ne s ad vi so ry . To ai d app el la te rev ie w, ho wev er, th e d is tri ctco urt ag ai n d et erm in edth atW il li am s’ BOLEO con vi ct io n c on st itut eda cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er fe de ral law an d t ha t Will ia m s qua li fie d a s a c aree r of fen de r un de r th e g ui de li ne s. Will ia m s’ adv is ory gu id el in es ran ge was c al cu la te d to be 36 0 m on th s t o l ife im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d Wil li am s’ reque stfora do wnwar d v ari an ce, s ta te d i ts reas on s fo r im po si ng it s s en te nc e, an d re-s en te nc edW il li am s t o l ife im pr is on m en t. W il li am s ap pe al edhi s s eco ndli fe s en te nc e, whi chwe affi rm ed . Uni te d St at es v. Will ia m s, 5 63 F.3d12 39 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (“ W il li am s II ”). In

3W il li am s II , we exp la in edth atun de r Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 5 28 F.3d13 18

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) , whet he r a co nv ic ti on un de r st at e la w con st itut es a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” u nd er the gu id el in es is a qu es ti on of f ed eral law. Will ia m s II , 56 3 F .3d at12 42 –4 3. Acco rd in gl y , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inHearn s co ul d no t o ve rru le th is Co urt’s d eci si on inUni te d S ta te s v . Glo ve r, 43 1 F .3d74 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ), whi ch he ldth ata BOLEO con vi ct io n c on st itut es a cri m e o f vi ol en ce un de r th e g ui de li ne s. Will ia m s II , 56 3 F .3dat 1 24 3. The Supr em e Co urt l at er re ve rs edou r de ci si oninJo hn so n, h ol di ng th atth e Fl or id a fel on y

off en se of b at te ry

was n otcat eg or ic al ly a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act. J oh ns on v. Un it edSta te s, 5 59 U.S. __ _, _

__ , 13 0 S.Ct . 12 65 , 12 74 (20 10 ). The Supr em e Co urt al so va cat edan d re m an de d o ur de ci si on inW il li am s II inli gh t o f it s h ol di ng inJo hn so n. Will ia m s v . Uni te d St at es , 13 0 S .Ct. 1 73 4 (2 01 0) . On rem an d, we v acat edW il li am s’ sen te nc e an d rem an de d fo r an ot he r re-s en te nc in g. Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 6 09 F.3d11 68 , 11 69 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ W il li am s II I”). Sp eci fic al ly, we he ldth atinli gh t o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng inJo hn so n, Will iam s’ BOLEO con vi ct io n s ta nd in g al on e co ul d n otco ns ti tu te a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” u nd er the “ph y si cal for ce” subd iv is io n o f U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a )(1 ). W il li am s II I, 60 9 F .3dat 1 16 9– 70 . W e no te d, h owe ve r, th atitwas u nc le ar u nd er wh ic h s ub di vi si on of t he “ cri m e o f

4vi ol en ce” d efi ni ti onth e d is tri ctco urt h adco ns id eredW il li am s’ BOLEO

co nv ic ti on an d t ha t Will iam s h adals o b een co nv ic te d o f res is ti ng anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce. Id . at 1 16 9– 70 , n.1 . Accor di ng ly, we he ld : To th e ex te nt th at th e di st ric t co urt be li ev ed th at W il li am s’s co nv ic ti on fo r [BOLEO] was a “ cri m e of vi o l e n c e” be cau se it in vo lv ed “ th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce” an d th us qu al ifi ed fo r en ha nc em en t, th e se nt en ce m us t be se t as id e. Acco rd in gl y , we v a c at e W il li am s’s se nt en ce an d rem an d fo r re-s en te nc in g co ns is te nt with th is op in io n. Id . at 1 17 0. On re m an d, the pa rti es fil eda joi ntm ot io n t o c on ti nu e se nt en ci ng , reque st in g t ha t a n ew PSI b e p rep aredan d o bjec ti on s b e p erm it te d b ecau se th e ex is ti ng PSI h aderro ne ou sl y ba se d Wil li am s’ caree r of fen de r st atus on th e BOLEO con vi ct io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n. AtW il li am s’ sec on d re-s en te nc in g t he co urt s ta te d t ha t d es pi te W il li am s’ in si st en ce tha t a d e n ov o re se nt en ci ng was re qu ire d i t wo ul d o nl y ad dr es s h is care er o ffen de r st atus inli gh t o f th e li m it edba si s fo r ou r rem an d i n Wil li am s II I. The p ro ba ti on off ic er as se rte d a t th e h eari ng th atW il li am s s ti ll qu al ifi edas acare er o ffen de r ba se d o n h is co nv ic ti on forres is ti ng anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce. Insupp ort o f th atpo si ti on , th e pr ob at io n o ffi cer n ot edth atwe he ldth ata co nv ic ti on forres is ti ng anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce co ns ti tu te d avi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e res idua l cl au se of t he ACCA in an unpubl is he d m anus cri ptop in io n t ha t h adbe enis su edfiv e d ay s ea rli er. See Uni te d 5St at es v. Hayes, No. 0 9- 12 02 4, 2 01 0 WL 34 89 97 3, m anus cri ptop . (11 th Cir . Sep t.

8, 2 01 0) , vac at edonot he r gr ou nd s, 2 01 0 WL 51 22 58 7 (1 1t h C ir. Dec . 16 , 20 10 ). The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t the pro ba ti on off ic er co rrec tl y

cal cu la te d W il li am s’ bas e o ffen se lev el at 3 7 i n l ig htof h is re-c la ss ifi cat io n a s a c aree r of fen de r ba se d o n h is co nv ic ti on s fo r res is ti ng anoff ic er wi thvi ol en ce an d po ss es si on with i nt en t t o s el l o r de li ve r co cai ne . The d is tri ctco urt ag ai n re se nt en cedW il li am s t o l ife im pr is on m en t, an d Wil li am s o bjec te d t o the sen te nc e as pr oc edur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . II. W il li am s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt d ep riv edhi m of due pro ces s an d vi ol at edFed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2 by den y in g h is m ot io n t o 1 co nt in ue hi s s en te nc in g a ndhi s re qu es t t o o rd er the pre pa rat io n o f a n ew PSI, o r, al te rn at iv el y , by fai li ng to all ow h im to subm itwrit te n o bjec ti on s b ecau se th e pr ob at io n o ffi cer r ai se d ane w bas is forth e car eer o ffen de r cl as si fic at io n a t h is se co ndre-s en te nc in g h eari ng . W il li am s al so arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt fa il edto Rule 32 provides: 1 The probation office r must c onduct a prese ntence investiga tion and submit a repor

t to the court befor e it imposes sentenc e unless . . . the court finds that the information in the rec ord enable s i t to meaning fully exercise its sentenc ing authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and the court e x plains its finding on the re cord. Fe d. R. Crim. P . 32(c) (1)( A)(ii). The Rule does not, howeve r, addr ess the proc edure for r esentenc ing. 6gi ve m ean in gf ul co ns id erat io n t o h is § 3 55 3( a) ar gu m en ts de sp it e th e fac t tha t o ur rem an d i n Wil li am s II I requi reda ne w re-s en te nc in g. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s co m pl ia nc e wit h am an da te . Uni te d St at es v. Cr ap e, 60 3 F .3d12 37 , 12 41 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). A di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o c on ti nu e se nt en ci ng is rev ie wedon ly for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d S ta te s v . Dou gl as , 48 9 F .3d11 17 , 11 28 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ The de fen da nt ha s t he bu rd ento de m on st rat e th atth e d en ia l was anab us e o f di sc ret io n a ndth atit pr oduc edsp eci fic subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce.”) . W e rev ie w de n ov o wh ethe r a de fen da nt ’s pri orco nv ic ti onqu al ifi es as acri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. Un it edSta te s v . Harri s, 5 86 F.3d12 83 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Whe n we v acat e a jud gm en t fo r co ns id erat io n i n l ig htof aparti cu la r de ci si on , th e eff

ectis “ m uc h m or e li m it edinna tu re” t ha n age ne ral va catur , as i t do es no t n ul li fy

all pri orpro ceed in gs inth e cas e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Davi s, 3 29 F.3d 12 50 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Bot h t he Supr em e Co urt an d t hi s Co urt v acat edan d re m an de d t he jud gm en t i n t hi s ca se inli gh t o f Jo hn so n, wh ic h was rel ev an t o nl y

as t o Wil li am s’ caree r of fen de r st atus . The p la in lan gu ag e o f ou r de ci si on inW il li am s II I va cat edth e d is tri ctco urt’s s en te nc e o nl y “ to th e ex te nt ” th atitwas p rem is edon W il li am s’ cla ss ifi cat io n a s a c aree r of fen de r ba se d on th e tr eat m en t o f hi s B OLEO con vi ct io n a s a c rime of v io le nc e und er §

74B 1.2 (a)( 1) , andwe rem an de d fo r “ re-s en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th [th at ] op in io n.”

W il li am s II I, 60 9 F .3dat 1 17 0 (e m ph as is ad de d) . Thu s, wh il e we d idno t ex pr es sl y reaf firm th e o th er co m

po ne nt s o f W il li am s’ sen te nc e, ou r m an da te in W il li am s II I was li m it edto th e is su e o f whe th er Will ia m s h adbe enpro pe rly cl as si fie d a s a c aree r of

fen de r in li gh t o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inJo hn so n. W il li am s II I, 60 9 F .3dat 1 16 9. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by refu si ng to co nduc t a d e n ov o re -s en te nc in g o r by fail in g t o c on si de r W il li am s’ arg um en ts co nc ern in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b efo re ag ai n i m po si ng a li fe s en te nc e. 2 Inco m pl y in g wi th our m an da te inW il li am s II I, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t de pr iv e Will ia m s o f du e p ro ces s o r im po se a pr oc edur al ly unr eas on ab le sen te nc e. Fi rs t, Will ia m s ca nn otsh ow tha t h e was pre jud ic edby the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o c on ti nu e se nt en ci ng be cau se he was o n n ot ic e th athi s co nv ic ti on for res is ti ng anoff

ic er wi th vi ol en ce co ul d b e u se d t o e nh an ce h is sen te nc e b as edon ou r rem an d i n Wil li am s II I, whi ch sp eci fic al ly ide nt ifi edth atco nv ic ti on as a po ss ib le pre di cat e o ffen se forth e car eer o ffen de r en hanc em en t. See W il li am s II I, 60 9 F .3dat 1 17 0 n .1. Fu rth erm or e, th e d is tri ctco urt al lo wedW il li am s t o o bjec t t o th e u se of t ha t co nv ic ti on as aba si s fo r th e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t an d t o
In light of the district court’s compliance with our limit ed rema nd, which only require d the 2 district court to re- sentenc e Wil liams in ligh t o f t h e S upreme Court’s holding in J ohnson, we likewise decline to addre ss Wil liams’ contentions conce rning the substantive rea sonablene ss of his sentenc e. 8arg ue th e m eri ts of Ha y es an d o th er re le vantcas es . The d is tri ctco urt al so st at ed

on th e rec or d i ts reas on s fo r im po si ng a li fe s en te nc e: “ Bas edon th e d efen da nt ’s le ng th y cri m in al act iv it y

be gi nn in g a ge 13 , a [se nt en ce atth e] hig h e ndof t he gu id el in e ran ge wou ldpro te ctth e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im es , [an d] wou ldactas a de te rren t.” Th e co urt was no t re qu ire d t o “ st at e o n t he reco rdth atitha s ex pl ic it ly co ns id eredeach of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s o r to di sc us s ea ch of t he § 3 55 3( a) fact or s,” Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W il li am s’ arg um en t tha t h e was im pr op erl y cla ss ifi edas acare er o ffen de r ba se d o n h is co nv ic ti on for res is ti ng anoff

ic er wi th vi ol en ce i s fo recl os edby our de ci si on inUni te d S ta te s v . Nix , 62 8 F .3d13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), whi ch ex pr es sl y ad op te d t he reas on in g o f Hay es an d h el d t ha t a c on vi ct io n u nd er Fl or id a law for res is ti ng anoff

ic er wi th vi ol en ce co ns ti tu te d avi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA. See Un it edSta te s v . Arch er, 5 31 F.3d13 47 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ Thi s co urt ha s re pe at ed ly read the de fin it io n o f a ‘vio le ntfel on y ’ un de r § 9 24 (e) o f th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act as ‘ vi rtu al ly ide nt ic al ’ to th e d efi ni ti on of a‘ cri m e o f vi ol en ce’ un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2.”) . AFFIRMED.

9