NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 12 a05 27n. 06 No. 09 -634 4 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

UNITE D ST AT ES O F AMERICA, Plaint if f -Appe llee,

v

. ANT HONY

EL LIS , Def end ant -Appe llant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL FROM T HE UNIT ED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE W ES TER N D ISTRICT OF TEN N ES SE E

Bef ore: DAUGHT REY, COLE, and ROGERS, Circuit Jud ges.

MA RT HA CRAIG DAUGHTRE Y, Circuit Judge. In this sent encin g app eal, def end ant Ant hon y Ellis challen ges the increase d pen alty imp os ed by the district court und er the Arme d Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(2)(A)( ii) (ACCA), on the gr oun d tha t his tw o state cocain e convictions do not qualif y as "se rious drug of

f ense s" und er the statu te. But , beca use the se convictions each carried a ma x imu m prison term of ten y ears und er the sent encin g statu tes of T enn essee at the time of Ellis's sent encin g in state court, the district court held tha t the y const itute "se rious drug o f f ense s" und er the ACCA. W e agree, a nd w e th eref ore a f f irm th e d istrict court’s se nte ncing orde r.

FA CTUA L A ND PROCEDURA L BA CKGROUND

T he of f ense of con v iction a rose f rom a tra f f ic stop by tw o Mem phis p olice o f f icers

w ho pulled Ellis over f or spe edin g and arrested him af ter d iscoveri ng tha t he w as d riv ingNo. 0 9-63 44

United Sta tes v. Ellis,

on a suspe nde d license. T hey the n search ed his ve h ic le and f oun d a load ed Colt .38 caliber rev olver. Ell is w as indicted as a fe lon in po ssession of a f irearm und er 18 U .S.C. § 922 (g ). He a gr e e d to plea d guilty to the charge in exchange f or the gov ernm ent ’s

recom me nda tion tha t he w ould receive f ull credit f or a c c e p t a n c e of respo nsibility und er U.S.S. G. § 3E1 .1 and w ould be sent ence d at the low end o f the app licable sent encin g range. Ellis also agreed to "waiv e[ ] his rig ht to app eal any sent ence imp osed by the Court and the ma nne r in w hich the sent ence is det ermin ed so long as the sent ence [w a]s w ithin the tot al sta tuto ry

m aximum sen ten ce f or th e co unt s of con v iction."

At the plea hea ring, the district court rev iew ed the elem ent s of the of f ense and the pot ent ial stat uto ry

pe naltie s w ith E llis, explaining that :

Sect ion 922 (g )

. . . carries a pen alty of not mo re tha n ten y ears imp risonm ent

. . . . If , h o we ve r, you've had three prior convictions f or v iolent f elon ies or s e rio us drug of

f ense s, the n the pen alty goes to a min imu m 15 y ears imp risonm ent up to and includin g the possib ility of life imp risonm ent w ithou t the po ssibility

of pa role.

Ellis ackno w ledged tha t he und erstoo d the se possib le pen alties, the term s of the plea
agreem ent , and the conse quence s of plea ding guilty

. T he district court the n app rov ed the term s of the agreem ent , an d E llis ente red a guilty plea

.

T he ensu ing prese nte nce repo rt not ed tha t Ellis had an extensive criminal history, includin g (1) a 198 9 state f elon y conviction f or posse ssing co caine w ith the inten t to

ma nuf actu re, deliver, or sell; (2) a 198 9 state f elon y conviction f or selling cocain e; and (3)

- 2 -No. 0 9-63 44

United Sta tes v. Ellis,

a 199 0 s t a t e f elon y conviction f or aggr avated robb ery

. Beca use the ACCA requires imp osition of a min imu m sent ence of 15 y ears w hen a def end ant is convicted of v iolating 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g ) and has three previous convictions "f or a violent f elon y or a serious d ru g o f f ense , or bot h, com mitt ed on occasio ns dif f eren t f rom one ano the r," 18 U. S

. C. § 924 (e)(1), the prese nte ncing repo rt classif ied Ellis as an arme d caree r criminal subje ct to the 15-year ma nda tory- min imu m sent ence

. At his sent enci ng hea ring, Ellis obje cted to
app lication of

the ACCA. Altho ugh he conce ded tha t his st ate con v iction f or aggrav ate d robb ery const itute d a "violent f elon y ," he argued tha t his t w o co caine con v ictions did not qualif y as "se rious drug of

f ense s" und er the ACCA, w hich def ines a "se rious drug of f ense "

as "a n of f ense und er Sta te law , involv ing ma nuf actu ring, distributing, o r posse ssing with inten t to ma nuf actu re or distribut e, a cont rolled subst ance

. . . f or w hich a ma x imu m term of imp risonm ent of ten y ears or mo re i s prescribed by l aw." 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(2)(A)( ii). Ellis conce ded tha t his 198 9 convictions carried a pen alty of “ten y ears or mo re” at the time of his sent encin g in state court but argued tha t the law of t h is c ir c uit looks to the dat e of f ede ral sent encin g to det ermin e w het her a state conviction qua li f ie s as a “serious drug of f ense ” und er th e A CCA.

In respo nse, the gov ernm ent poin ted out tha t all cocain e convictions in T enn essee prior t o 1 9 9 2 c a rr ied a ma x imu m pen alty of ten y ears or mo re, w ithou t regard to the

am oun t of

cocaine attribu tab le to the def end ant , in cont rast to sub sequen t sta te st atu tes tha t calculat ed pun ishm ent on the basis of quantity. T he gov ernm ent ackno w ledged tha t at the time of

Ellis’s f ede ral sent encin g, T enn essee treat ed f elon ious posse ssion of less - 3 -No. 0 9-63 44

United Sta tes v. Ellis, tha n .5 gr am s less seriou sly tha n p ossessio n o f

m ore t han .5 gr am s, bu t con ten ded tha t beca use the 198 9 jud gmen ts f ailed to sp ecif y an am oun t, the y neverthe less qualif ied as “serious d rug of

f ense s” und er th e A CCA.

T he district court agreed, f ollowed the recom me nda tion in the prese nte nce repo rt, and sent ence d Ellis to 15 y ears' imp risonm ent as an arme d caree r criminal. Noting the def end ant ’s obje ction to the increase d pen alty, the district court the n s t a t e d tha t "[e ]ven tho ugh th ere was a waiv er . . . o f the de f end ant 's ap pea l, .

. . I believe tha t this is a legal issue w hich shou ld be appe alab le if it's the def end ant 's desire. " Ellis f iled a time ly not ice of app eal. T he gov ernm ent respo nde d by mo v ing to dism iss the app eal, cont end ing tha t Ellis had w aived the rig ht to app eal his sent ence

. W e f ind it unn ecessa ry t o re s olve t he question of

w aiver, in v iew

of ou r ruling on th e m erits, b elow.

DISCUSSIO N

In orde r to imp ose the increase d pen alty provided in 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(1), the rule in this circuit has long required the district court to det ermin e w het her a f ede ral def end ant ’s prior st a te-cou rt convictions qualif y as “serious drug of

f ense s” base d on the app licable state sent encin g law s in existence at the time of f ede ral sent encin g, rathe r tha n at the time of the state -court conviction. T his rathe r coun terintu itiv e hold ing traces back to United Sta tes v. Morton , 17 F .3d 911, 915 (6th Cir. 199 4), in w hich t he court conclu ded tha t th e def inition of

“ serious drug of

f ense ” in subsectio n 924(e )(1)(A)( ii) is “amb iguous” becau se it f ails to specif

y w hen the det ermin ation of “seriousne ss” shou ld be ma de – w het her as of - 4 -No. 0 9-63 44

United Sta tes v. Ellis, the origi nal sent encin g in state court or as of the later f ede ral sent encin g. T he latte r interp retat ion w as invoked by the court und er the principa l of lenity, gi ve n t h a t the
app licable T enn essee statu te und er w hich Morton w as subje ct to a ten -y ear sent ence had since bee n am end ed to provide a ma x imu m sent ence of six y ears. See Morton , 17 F.3d at 9 15.

In a subse quent case, howev er, w e not ed tha t altho ugh it w as possib le to det ermin e tha t Morton’s convictions und er the am end ed T enn essee statu te w ould not qualif y as “serious drug of

f ense s” beca use bot h indictm ent s specif ied the am oun t of drugs involv ed, in oth er cases such certain ty might not be possib le. For e xa mp le, in Mallett v. United Sta tes , 334 F .3d 491 (6th Ci r. 200 3), the def end ant had origi nally bee n sent ence d und er

an Oh io s t a t u t e tha t calculat ed drug quantity in term s of dosa ges but had subse quently bee n am end ed to provide f or me asure me nt in gr am s. In sent encin g Mallett, the district court f oun d tha t beca use no sy stem of conversion f rom d o s e s t o gr a ms existed, it w as “dif f icult to discern exactly how Mallett w ould be sent ence d und er the Ohio drug sent encin g provisi ons tha t w ere in ef f ect at t he time he w as se nte nced in f ede ral cou rt.” Id. at 502

. W e agreed, conclu ding tha t such a s it uat ion “militate s in f avor of det ermin ing the classif ication of the cont rolled-sub stan ce of f ense as of the time of the state -court conviction.” Id. at 503 . W e th eref ore h eld:

W hen the origi nal sent ence is imp osed , the re is no prob lem det ermin ing the ma x imu m term of imp risonm ent f or tha t of f ense

. Such a det ermin ation is no longer possi b le a t the time of sent encin g in f ede ral court, howev er, unle ss the state -court indictm ent or jury instructio ns cont ain the inf orma tion tha t - 5 -No. 0 9-63 44

United Sta tes v. Ellis,

w ould ena ble the district court to det ermin e the pun ishm ent tha t w ould app ly to t he def end ant 's con v iction u nde r the am end ed state laws.

Id.

As w as the case in Mallett , the re is n o w ay to discern f rom the record how Ellis

w ould be s e nte nced und er T enn essee ’s rev ised drug law s in ef f ect at the time of his f ede ral sent encin g in this case, beca use the quantitie s of cocain e involv ed in the 198 9 state -court cases w ere imm ate rial und er the f orme r T enn essee statu te and do not app ear in relevant docu me nts stem min g f rom his state convictions, i.e. , indictm ent s, plea
agreem ent s, jury instructions, or judgme nts. It f ollows tha t the district court did n ot e rr in looking to the state pen alties app licable at the time of E ll is ’s convictions in state court in det ermin ing that tho se co nvictions w ere f or “serious drug of f ense s.”

Moreover, w e not e tha t the f orme r law in this circuit has bee n ef f ectively overturned by the Sup reme Court’s recen t opi n io n in McNeill v. United Sta tes , in w hich the Court describe d t h e ACCA’s requireme nt tha t a district court “dete rmine w het her a < previous conviction’ was f or a serious drug of f ense ” as a “backward-looking question ” tha t can be resolved only by “consu lt[ing] the law tha t app lied at the time of tha t conviction.”

___ U.S.

___ ,
___ , 131 S.Ct. 221 8, 222 2 (201 1). Ind eed , at one poin t in the McNeill opin ion, the Court bot h cited w ith app rov al and discusse d Mallett , not in g in tha t case – as indicat ed abo v e – tha t the Six th Circuit w as “comp elled t o lo o k to state law < as of the time of the state -court conviction’ to det ermin e the ma x imu m possib le sent ence f or Mallett’s prior

- 6 -No. 0 9-63 44

United Sta tes v. Ellis, of f ense .” Id. at 222 3 (q uot ing Mallett , 334 F.3d at 503 ). T hus, the re can no longer be any dou bt tha t the district court correctl y s ent ence d Ellis as an arme d caree r criminal in this

case.

AFFIRMED.

- 7 -