FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 18 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 14 04 1- CR-KM M UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us PATRICK FR EDERICK W ILLIAMS, 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 fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 2 2, 2 01 0) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT O F THE UNI TED ST ATES Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d R ESTANI, Ju dg e. *
Honora ble J ane Re stani, Chief Judg e of the United States Court of I nternational Trade , * sitti ngby designation.DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e:

In Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 56 3 F .3d12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), we affi rm ed Patric k F red eri ckW il li am s’s l ife sen te nc e as a care er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 fol lo win g h is co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of c rackco cai ne . The Supr em e Co urt v acat edou r jud gm en t, W il li ams v. Uni te d Sta tes , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 73 4 (2 01 0) , an d re m an de d the cas e to us forfurth er co ns id erat io n i n l ig htof i ts de ci si on in Jo hn so n v . Uni te d Sta tes , __U.S. __ , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 26 5 (2 01 0) . After a dd it io na l
rev ie w, we vac at e Will ia m s’s s en te nc e an d re m an d fo r re-s en te nc in g. In Jo hn so n , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t the Flo rid a fel on y off en se of ba tt ery was no t a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e “ph y si cal for ce” s ub di vi si onof t he Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) . 13 0 S . Ct. at12 74 ; se e a ls o 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i) (20 06 ) (d efi ni ng “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” inpa rt a s an y cri m e th at“ 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”) . The Co urt re as on edth at“ in th e co nt ex t o f a s ta tu to ry de fin it io n o f ‘ vi ol en t

fel on y ,’ th e p hr as e ‘ph y si cal for ce’ m ean s vi ol en t for ce—th at is , for ce capabl e o f cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or i nju ry to an othe r pe rs on .” 13 0 S . Ct. at12 71 . The Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the Flo rid a b at te ry off en se was n ota “ vi ol en t fel on y ” u nd er the “ph y si cal for ce” s ub di vi si on of t he ACCA b ecau se Flo rid a co urts ha ve he ldth atth e fel on y ba tt ery of

fen se requi res pro of

of o nl y sl ig ht , 2in ci de nt al ph y si cal co nt act . Id
. at 1 26 9, 1 27 4; se e a ls o St at e v. Hea rn s , 96 1 S o. 2 d

21 1, 2 19 (Fl a. 20 07 ) (h ol di ng th atth e Fl or id a cri m e o f ba tt ery on a la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cer, “ li ke ba tt ery it se lf, m ay be co m m it te d wi th on ly nom in al
co nt act ”). Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt ap pa ren tl y rel ie d o n Wil li am s’s p rio r co nv ic ti on forba tt ery on a law enf or cem en t o ffi cer a s a p red ic at e fo r se nt en ce en ha nc em en t u nd er the care er o ffen de r pr ov is io n o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . 1 Se e U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(a ) (d efi ni ng care er o ffen de r as on e who ha 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 edsubs tanc e of fen se ”). W e h ol d tha t, i n l ig htof t he Supr em e Co urt’s ru li ng in Jo hn so n , th e factof aco nv ic ti on forfel on y ba tt ery on a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer i n F lo rid a, st an di ng alo ne , no lo ng er s at is fie s t he “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” e nh an cem en t cr it eri a as de fin edun de r th e “ph y si cal for ce” s ub di vi si on of s ect io n 4 B1 .2(a )(1 ) of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . Tho ug h t he st atut ory co nt ex t h ere v ari es so m ewh atfro m

At the sentenc ing he aring , the district court did not indicate unde r which subdivision of 1 the “c rime of violenc e” de finition, found in U.S.S .G. § 4B 1.2(a) , Wil liams’s conviction for battery on a law e nforc ement off icer qualified. We note a

g ener al lack of

specific ity

reg arding the basis for Williams’s care er of fende r enha

nceme nt, espec ially

beca use the re cord sug g ests that, in addition to W illiams’s convictions for batter y on a law e nforc ement off icer , Wil liams pled nolo contendereto resisting a n office r with violence in violation of Fla. Stat. § 843.01, a third degree felony . Florida courts have noted that a c onviction under this statute requir es proof of conduc t or attempted c onduct involving thre atene d or ac tual phy sical for ce w ith violence. W alker v . State , 965 So. 2d 1281, 1283–84 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 2007). 3th atpre se ntin Jo hn so n , we hav e n o re as on to be li ev e th atth e wor ds pre se ntinth e

ACCA h av e a d iff

eren t m ean in g t ha n t he same word s u se d i n the sen te nc in g gu id el in es . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ar ch er , 53 1 F .3d13 47 , 13 52 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (“ Thi s co urt h as rep eat ed ly read the de fin it io n o f a ‘vio le ntfel on y ’ un de r § 9 24 (e) of 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 ‘crim e o f vi ol en ce’ un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2.”)
. At the ti m e o f W il li am s’s co nv ic ti on , Flo rid a la w cri m in al iz in g b at te ry on a po li ce o ffi cer p ro vi de d a s fo ll ows : Whe ne ve r an y

pe rs onis ch arg edwith kno win gl y co m mit ti ng an as saul t o r ba tt ery up on a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer . . . th e o ffen se for whi ch th e p ers on is ch arg edsh al l b e rec la ss ifi edas f ol lo ws: . . . (b ) Inth e cas e o f ba tt ery, fro m a m is de m ean orof t he fir stde gr ee t o a fel on y of t he th irdde gr ee. Fl a. St at . § 7 84 .07 (2 ). A per so n c omm it s b at te ry if h e: (a) Actua ll y

an d i nt en ti on al ly tou ch es or s tri ke s an othe r pe rs on ag ai ns t the wil l o f th e o th er; or (b ) In te nt io na ll y

cau se s b od il y

ha rm to anin di vi du al
. Fl a. St at . § 7 84 .03 (1 ). W e se e n o e vi de nc e in th e rec or d, tha t we m ay co ns id er un de r Sh ep ar d v . Uni te d Sta tes , to cla rif y un de r whi ch of t he se pro vi si on s W il li am s was co nv ic te d. Se e 54 4 U.S. 1 3, 2 6, 1 25 S. Ct. 1 25 4, 1 26 2 (2 00 5) (li m it in g fa ct -fi nd in g c on cern in g p rio r co nv ic ti on s t o “ th e te rm s o f th e ch arg in g

4do cu m en t, the term s o f a p le a ag reem en t o r tr an sc rip t o f co ll oquy betweenjud ge

an d d efen da ntinwhi ch th e fac tu al ba si s fo r th e p le a was co nf irmed by the de fen da nt , or t o s om e co m pa rab le jud ic ia l re co rdof t hi s i nf orm at io n” ). To the
ex te ntth atth e d is tri ctco urt b el ie ve d t ha t Will ia m s’s co nv ic ti onforba tt ery on a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer was a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” b ecau se itin vo lv ed“ th e u se , at te m pt edus e, orth reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce” a ndth us qu al ifi edfor
en ha nc em en t, the sen te nc e m us t b e se t as id e. Acco rd in gl y , we vac at e Will ia m s’s
se nt en ce an d re m an d t hi s ca se for re-s en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th th is op in io n. VACATED an d REMANDED.

5