FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 11, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 90 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cr-1 40 35 -DLG-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us LENW OOD DAVIES, a.k .a. Lenwo odDavi s, 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st11 , 20 10 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, HULL andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y , Lenwo odDavi es ap pe al s h is 18 0- m on thto ta lse nt en ce fo r co ns pi racy to p os se ss an d p os se ss io n wi thin te ntto di st rib ut e 5 0 o r

m or e g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 a nd84 1( a)(1 ), an d po ss es si on of afir earm

by a con vi ct edfel on , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (e). Onap pe al , Davi es ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e), an d it s co rres po nd in g g ui de li ne s en ha nc em en ts pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .4. Aft er rev ie w, we affi rm . The ACCA im

po se s a m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o f fi fte eny ears if a de fen da ntco nv ic te d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) ha s “ th ree p rev io us co nv ic ti on s . . . fo r a v io le ntfel on y

or aser io us dru g o ffen se , or b ot h, co m m it te d o n o ccas io ns di ffer en t fr om

on e an ot he r . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ). A defe nd an t wh o i s se nt en cedun de r th e ACCA i s al so an“ arm edcare er cr im in al ” u nd er the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , whi ch affe ct s t he de fen da nt ’s off en se lev el an d c riminal hi st ory cat eg ory . U.S.S.G. §§ 4 B1 .4(a )-(c ). 1

An ar med ca ree r criminal’s offense level is the greatest of (1) the otherwise a pplicable 1 offe nse leve l; (2) the off

ense le vel under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (the c are er of fende r provision), if applicable ; (3) 34, if the de fenda nt, amongother thing s, used or possesse d the fire arm in connec tion with a qualifying of fense ; or (4) othe rwise, 33. U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.4(b). The arme d car eer criminal’s c riminal history cate g ory is the g reatest of (1) the otherwise a pplicable c riminal history cate g ory or the c riminal history

cate g ory from § 4B 1.1 (the c are er of fende r provision), if applicable ; (2) VI , if the def endant, a mong othe r thing s, used or possesse d the fire arm in connec tion with a qualifying of fense ; or (3) IV. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(c ).

2Here, we fi ndno rev ers ib le erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e

ACCA an d U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.4
. The Pr es en te nc e In ve st ig at io n R ep ort (“ PSI” ) 2 de si gn at edDavi es anarm edcare er cr im in al ba se d o n t he se fou r pr io r co nv ic ti on s: (1 ) a 1 98 8 F lo rid a co nv ic ti on forcarry in g aco nc eal edfir earm ; (2 ) two sep arat e 19 94 Flo rid a co nv ic ti on s fo r sa le s o f co cai ne ; an d (3 ) a 1 99 7 Geo rg iaco nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si on of c oc ai ne with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . Inres po ns e, Dav ie s’s s en te nc in g m em or an du m adm it te d h e qua li fie d a s an arm edcare er cr im in al . Davi es ackno wled ge d t ha t u nd er Ele ve nt h C irc ui t pr eced en t atth e ti m e carry in g aco nc eal edfir earm was a“ vi ol en t fe lo ny” for pu rp os es of t he ACCA, bu t “ res pe ct fu ll y di sa gr ee[d ]” with th atpre ced en t. Dav ie s al so adm it te d t ha t h is two 19 94 dru g c on vi ct io ns were s ep arat e o ffen se s, s ta ti ng th atth ey were ch arg edindi ffer en t co un ts inth e sa m e cas e an d i nv ol ve d “ th e sa le of $1 30 .00 wort h o f co cai ne on Apri l 2 7, 1 99 4” an d “ th e sa le of $ 12 5.0 0 wo rth of
co cai ne on Apri l 2 9, 1 99 4.” Davi es att ach ed , in te r al ia , a co py of th e in fo rm at io n ch arg in g t he co cai ne sal es on Apri l 2 7, 1 99 4 a ndApri l 2 9, 1 99 4. Dav ie s d idno t ad dr es s t he 19 97 co cai ne po ss es si on co nv ic ti on als o l is te d i n t he PSI as anACCAqu al ifyin g c on vi ct io n.
Davies’ s plea a gree ment contained a n appea l waiver

in which Davie s waived his right to 2 appea l his sentence e x cept in ce rtain circ umstances. The g overnme nt conce des Davies’s appe al falls within one of the e x ceptions to the sentenc e-a ppeal wa iver. 3On ap pe al , Davi es cit es Uni te d S ta te s v . Can ty, 57 0 F .3d12 51 (11 th Cir
.

20 09 ), whi chco nc lu de d t ha t a F lo rid a co nv ic ti on forcarry in g aco nc eal edfir earm is no t a v io le ntfel on y

withi n t he m ean in g o f th e ACCA. 5 70 F.3dat 1 25 5. We ag ree, b as edon Can ty, th atDavi es ’s 19 88 Flo rid a co nv ic ti on forcarry in g a co nc eal edfir earm

can no t b e u se d t o s up po rt h is ACCA se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts . Thi s i s n otrev ers ib le erro r, ho wev er, b ecau se Davi es ha s t hr ee o th er ACCAqu al ifyin g c on vi ct io ns , nam el y th e two 19 94 co cai ne sal e co nv ic ti on s an d t he 19 97 co cai ne po ss es si on co nv ic ti on . 3 Fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , Davi es arg ue s t ha t h is two 19 94 co cai ne sal e co nv ic ti on s wer e n otoff

en se s co m

m it te d o n d iff

eren t o ccas io ns . This arg um en t i s fo recl os edas i nv it ederro r be cau se at s en te nc in g Dav ie s af firm at iv el y

st at edth at th ey were two s ep arat e o ffen se s, o ne co m m it te d o n Ap ril 27 , 19 94 an d t he ot he r co m m it te d o n Ap ril 29 , 19 94 . See Un it edSta te s v . Bak er, 4 32 F.3d11 89 , 12 16 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (“ It i s a c ard in al rul e o f ap pe ll at e rev ie w th ata pa rty m ay no t ch al le ng e as erro r a ru li ng or o th er tria l p ro ceed in g” if s uc h e rro r was in vi te d b y We ordinarily

revie w de novo whe ther a prior convic tion qualifies as a violent fe lony or 3 a serious drugoffe nse under the ACCA, United States v. J ames, 430 F .3d 1150, 1153 (11th Cir. 2005), and whether

two offe nses ar e sepa

rate for pur

poses of the A CCA, United States v. Sneed, 600 F.3d 1326, 1330 n.5 ( 11th Cir. 2010). Be cause Davies a rgued in the district cour

t that his 1988 conce aled we apon convic tion was not proper ly considere d a “violent f

elony” for ACCA purposes, he prese rved his Canty claim for a

ppellate r eview. H oweve r, Davies’s re maining arguments attackinghis other prior c onvictions were not raised in the district cour t and, thus, are revie wed only

for plain e rror . See United States v. Ne ely , 979 F.2d 1522, 1523 ( 11th Cir. 1992). 4th e p arty

(al te rat io ns an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). Inan y ev en t, the in fo rm at io n c ha rg in g Dav ie s wi th co cai ne sal es on two di ffer en t d at es supp orts a fi nd in g t ha t the two off en se s wer e te m

po ral ly dis ti nc t
an d t hu s s ep arat e fo r pu rp os es of t he ACCA. See Un it edSta te s v . Sne ed , 60 0 F.3 d 1 32 6, 1 33 3- 32 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata di stric t co urt m ay lo okto
so ur ces ap pr ov edby Shep ardv. Un it edSta te s, 5 44 U.S. 13 , 12 5 S . Ct. 1 25 4 (2 00 5) , su ch as ach arg in g d oc um en t, t o d et erm in e whe th er o ffen se s wer e co m m it te d o n d iff

eren t o ccas io ns forpu rp os es of the ACCA). The factth at Dav ie s’s two o ffen se s wer e co ns ol id at edforsen te nc in g d oe s n otm ean th ey were a si ng le co nv ic ti on un de r th e ACCA. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Owens , 15 F.3d99 5, 9 98 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) (co nc lu di ng th atth ree c on vi ct io ns supp orte d ACC A enh an cem en t be cau se th ey

oc cu rredon di ffer en t d at es , “ al th ou gh th ey were al l re so lv edinon e pr oc eed in g” ). Fi na ll y , we rejectDavi es ’s cla im , als o ra is edforth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , th atth e th irdACCA-qua li fy in g c on vi ct io n—th e 1 99 7 c oc ai ne po ss es si on co nv ic ti on—ca nn otbe co ns id eredbe cau se itwas n otch arg edas a n e le m en t i n h is fed eral in di ctm en t. Un de r bi nd in g p rece de nt , a pr io r co nv ic ti on ne edno t b e al le ge d i n a n i nd ic tm en t t o s up po rt t he ap pl ic at io n o f a s en te nc in g e nh an cem en t. Alm en da rez- Torr es v. Un it edSta te s, 5 23 U.S. 22 4, 2 43 -4 4, 1 18 S. Ct. 1 21 9, 1 23 0- 531 (19 98 ); Un it edSta te s v . Greer, 4 40 F.3d12 67 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 06 )

(ex pl ai ni ng th atwe are b ou ndby A lm en da rez- Torr es un le ss an d u nt il itis
ov erru le d b y

th e Supr em e Co urt). By fail in g t o o bjec t t o t he 19 97 co cai ne po ss es si on co nv ic ti on li st edinth e PSI, Dav ie s i s d eem edto have adm it te d i t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Ben ne tt , 47 2 F .3d82 5, 8 32 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (co nc lu di ng th ata di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs supp orti ng anACCA en hanc em en t m ay be ba se d o n factua l s ta te m en ts inth e PSI n otdi sp ut edby the de fen da nt ). Furth erm or e, Dav ie s do es no t co nt en d tha t h is 19 97 co cai ne po ss es si on co nv ic ti onis no t a s eri ou s dru g of fen se withi n t he m ean in g o f th e ACCA. Giv enth atth e two 19 94 co cai ne sal e co nv ic ti on s an d t he 19 97 co cai ne po ss es si on co nv ic ti on are s uf fic ie ntto supp ort ap pl ic at io n o f th e ACCA
se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts in18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e) andU.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .4, we fi ndno rev ers ib le erro r an d a ffi rm Davi es ’s 18 0- m on th sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

6