FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11488 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 2 0 5 - CR - J - 2 5 - HTS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s B R Y A N L A M A R A R C H E R , a .k .a . B o o k b a g , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 19, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B ry a n L a m a rA r c he rappe a l s hi s 188- m onth s e nt e nc e f ordrug tr a f

f i c ki ng.2

A rch er arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n d et erm i n i n g th ath e q u al i fi es as a c a r e e ro f f e n d e r , p u r s u a n t to U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s § 4 B 1 .1 , b a s e d , in part , on a pri or conv i ct i on for c arry i ng a c on ce al ed w eapo n. F or the re as on s s t at ed b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A fe dera l grand j ury r eturned an i nd i ctm entchar gi ng A rc her w i th con spi ra cy t o d i stri bu t e a nd po ss es s w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e f i ve gram s or m ore of c ra ck coca i ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 6, 84 1(a) (1) a nd 84 1(b)(1)(B) (count 1), di stri bu t i on of cr ac k cocai ne (c ou nt2), di stri bu t i on of fi ve or m ore grams of cra ck coca i ne (c ou nt s 3 and 4 ), and p osse ss i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e f i ve or m ore gr a m s of c r a c k c oc a i ne ( c ount5) a l l i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd (b )(1 ). A rch er p l ead ed g u i l ty t o th ese ch arg es. P r i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, a pr oba t i on of f i c e rpr e pa r e d a pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) . I n the P S I , the pr oba t i on of f i c e rde t e r m i ne d tha tA r c he r ’ s pr i or conv i ct i on for c arry i ng a c on ce al ed w eapo n con st i tut ed a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 2( a ) a nd tha thi s pr i orF l or i da f e l ony c onvi c t i on f

or s e l l i n g c r a c k c o c a i n e wa s a “ c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o f f e n s e ” p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 4 B 1 .2 ( b ) , th u s m a k in g A r c h e ra “c a r e e ro f f e n d e r ” u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 ( a ) . T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e rthe r e f

or e r e c om m e nde d a n e nha nc e d t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

31,3

af t erre du ci ng the l evel for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty, and an enh ance d cri m i nal hi s t ory c a t e gory of

V I a nd c a l c ul a t e d a n a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge of 188 t o 235 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A thi s M a r c h 2007 s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, A r c he robj e c t e d t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e r ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha thi s pr i orc onvi c t i on f orc a rry i ng a c onc e a l e d w e apon const i tut ed a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” und erU . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 2(a) . T he di stri ctcourt ov errul ed the obj ec t i on and ado pt ed the prob at i on offi ce r’ s det erm i nat i on that A rc her i s aca re eroffe nd erpu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1(a) . T he di stri ctcourt sen t en ced A rch er t o 1 8 8 m o n th s’ i n carcerati o n . T h i s ap p eal fo l l o w s. I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s de no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. S pel l , 44 F . 3d 93 6, 93 8 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ). A d e f e n d a n t q u a lif

ie s a s a c a r e e ro f

f e n d e rif ( 1) the de f

e nda ntw a s a tl e a s te i ght e e n y e a r s ol d a tthe t i m e the de f e nda ntc om m i tt e d the i ns t a ntof f e ns e of c onvi c t i on; ( 2) the i ns t a nt offe nse of c on vi ct i on i s afe l on y thati s e i ther acr i m e of vi ol ence or a c o n tr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o f

f e n s e ; a n d ( 3 ) th e d e f

e n d a n th a s a tl e a s ttwo pri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s of e i ther acr i m e of vi ol ence or a c on trol l ed subst ance offe nse. U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 ( a ) . A “c r im e o f v io le n c e ” a s u s e d in s u b s e c tio n ( 2 ) is d e f in e d in se ct i on 4B 1. 2 as a ny of f e ns e unde rf

e de r a l ors t a t e l a w , puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm e ntf or4

a t erm exce edi ng on e y ea r, that(1) has as an el em entthe use, a tt e m pt e d us e , orthr e a t e ne d us e of phy s i c a l f

or c e a ga i ns tthe pe r s on of anot her, or (2) i s burgl ary of adw el l i ng , ar son, or ext ort i on , i nv ol ves us e of e xpl os i ve s , orothe rw i s e i nvol ve s c onduc ttha tpr e s e nt s a s e r i ous po t ent i al ri sk of ph ys i ca l i nj ury t o ano ther. A r c h e ra r g u e s th a t th e c r im e o f c a rry in g a c o n c e a le d w e ap o n d o e s n o t s u f f ic ie n tly pr e s e nta “ pot e nt i a l r i s k of phy s i c a l i nj ury t o a nothe r ” t o s a t i s f y thi s de f

i ni t i on of c r i me o f v i o l e n c e a n d th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r tth e r e f o r e e rr e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g h i m a c a r e e rof f e nde r . A r c he rc onc e de s , how e ve r , tha tthi s a r gum e nti s f or e c l os e d by b in d in g p r e c e d e n t o f

th is c o u r t. In U ni t ed S t at es v. G i l bert , 13 8 F . 3d 13 71 , 13 72 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ), thi s c ou rt a d d r e s s e d th is v e ry is s u e a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t c a rry in g a c o n c e a le d w e ap o n in vi ol at i on of F l ori da l aw i s acr i m e of vi ol ence pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 2(a) (2), and t hata pri or conv i ct i on for s uch a cri m e m ay approp ri at el y det erm i ne ca re er offe nd erst atus for s ent enci ng pu rposes . T hi s c ou rtre i t er at ed thatho l di ng i n U ni t ed S t at es v. A dam s, 31 6 F . 3d 11 96 , 11 97 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ) a nd re fuse d t o revi si tan is s u e s o d e f

in itiv e ly d e c id e d p r e v io u s ly . A d a m s e m p h a s iz e d th a t “[ t]h e la w o f th is ci rc ui ti s ‘ em ph at i c’ thaton l y the S up re m e C ou rtor thi s c ou rtsi tt i ng en banc can j ud i ci al l y overrul e apri or panel deci si on . ” Id . a t1197 n. 1 ( quot i ngC a r gi l l v. T u rp in , 1 2 0 F .3 d 1 3 6 6 , 1 3 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . W e r el y on the es t abl i shed l aw of thi s c ou rtand con cl ud e thatthe di stri ct5

c our tc orr e c t l y de t e r m i ne d tha tA r c he r ’ s pr e vi ous c onvi c t i on f orc a rry i ng a c onc e a l e d w e apon c ons t i tut e s a “ c r i m e of vi ol e nc e ” a nd tha tba s e d on tha tpr i or conv i ct i on , al on g w i th h i s other pri or conv i ct i on for a“ cont rol l ed subst ance of f e ns e , ” he m a y be c ons i de r e d a c a r e e rc r i m i na l unde rU . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 1( a ) . T he di stri ctcourtthere fore di d n oterr by s ent enci ng A rc her a s aca re ercr i m i nal pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 1. I I I . CONCL US I ON F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, A rch er’ s sen t en ce i s a f f i r m e d.