FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 21, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 31 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 09 -cv -2 09 96 -J LK, 1: 01 -cr- 00 23 3- SH-1 DURANE JOHNSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us 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 Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 21 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Dur an e Jo hn so n, a f

ed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t he de ni al of h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e, in whi ch he arg ue d t ha t h e was actua ll yin no cen t o f be in g acare er o ffen de r, be cau se hi s p rio r of fen se s d idno t s at is fy

th e st an da rdforcri m es of v io le nc e o r co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se s u nd er U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2 an d Begayv. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 3 U.S. 1 37 , 12 8 S .Ct. 1 58 1, 1 70 L.Ed.2d 49 0 (2 00 8) . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) o n th e fo ll owi ng two is su es : (1 ) Whe th er J oh ns on is actua ll y in no cen t o f be in g acare er of fen de r, be cau se hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on form an sl au gh te r do es no t co ns ti tu te 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; an d (2 ) Whe th er J oh ns on sh ou ldha ve be enpe rm it te d t o am en d h is pe ti ti on to in cl ud e a ch al le ng e to hi s p rio r drug co nv ic ti on ba se d o n t he actua l i nn oc en ce d oc tri ne . W it h re sp ectto th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a § 22 55 m ot io n, we re vi ew fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r an d que st io ns of l aw de no vo . McKa y v. Uni te d St at es , 65 7 F .3d11 90 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a reque st fo r le av e to am en d a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Far ris v. Un it ed St at es , 33 3 F .3d12 11 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Altho ug h t he sco pe of o urrev ie w is li m it edto th e is su es enum erat edinth e COA, we m

us t co ns id er fi rs t an y

is su e o f pr oc edur al de fau lt
. Id
. A clai m is pr oc edur al ly defau lt edif t he de fen da ntfai le d t o a dv an ce a c ha ll en ge on di rect ap pe al
. Id
. at 1 19 6. Pro cedur al de fau ltm ay be ex cu se d, b as edon on e o f two
ex cep ti on s: (1) on a sh owi ng of c au se forfai li ng to rai se th e cl ai m on di rectap pe al 2an d a ctua l p reju di ce fr om th e err or ; o r (2 ) fo r a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e o r actua l in no cen ce. Id
. Und er the actua l i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on , th e p ro cedur al de fau ltis ex cu se d i f th e p ris on er ca n s ho w th athe is actua ll y in no cen t o f th e cri m e o f co nv ic ti on , or i n th e cap it al sen te nc in g c on te xt , of t he sen te nc e it se lf. Id
. at 1 19 6- 97 . In McKa y , we de cl in edto ex te ndth e actua l i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on to th e p ro cedur al de fau ltrul e to th e p ris on er’s cl ai m

th athe was e rro ne ou sl y

sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r be cau se on e o f hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s d idno t l eg al ly qua li fy as acri m e o f vi ol en ce. Id
. at 1 19 8. We reas on edth atsu ch a cl ai m is “ on e o f le ga l, ra th er tha n fa ctua l, in no cen ce an d t hu s fa il s t o fa ll withi n t he actua l i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on 's p urvi ew.” Id
. Jo hn so n’s cl ai m

th athi s m an sl au gh te r co nv ic ti on do es no t qua li fy as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce i s s ub

ject t o p ro cedur al de fau lt , bec au se he fai le d t o ra is e th e is su e o n d ire ctap pe al . Und er McKa y , Jo hn so n c anno t ex cu se th is de fau ltby
as se rti ng actua l i nn oc en ce o f be in g acare er o ffen de r ba se d s ol el y on th e arg um en t th athi s m an sl au gh te r co nv ic ti ondo es no t s at is fy th e le ga l re qu ire m en ts fora cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Se e id
. at 1 19 8. In fact , he a ckno wled ge s t ha t h is cla im s ar e fo recl os edby McKa

yinhi s re pl y

bri ef fi le d wi th th is Co urt. Si m il arl y , Jo hn so n’s ar gu m en t tha t h is pri ordru g c on vi ct io n d oe s n ot
3qu al ify as a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se is pro cedur al ly defau lt edan d c an no t b e

ex cu se d b as edona cl ai m of l eg al in no cen ce o f be in g acare er o ffen de r. Becaus e Jo hn so n’s cl ai m

is pro cedur al ly barre d, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g J oh ns on ’s reque stto am en d h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o c ha ll en ge hi s p rio r drug co nv ic ti on . AFFIRMED.

4