[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-13340

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20908-CMA-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARRY BURTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 7, 2014)

Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-13340 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 1 of 5 
2

After pleading guilty, Larry Burton appeals his 70-month sentence for 

possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

After review, we affirm.

For the first time on appeal, Burton argues that the district court erred in 

treating his three prior felony drug convictions under Florida Statutes

§ 893.13(1)(a) as “controlled substance offenses” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). 1

 

Section 893.13(1)(a) makes it unlawful “to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess 

with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance.” Fla. Stat. 

§ 893.13(1)(a).

Because Burton did not dispute in the district court that his prior Florida 

convictions qualified as controlled substance offenses, our review is limited to 

plain error. See United States v. Castro, 455 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 2006). 

For an error to be plain, it must be clear under current law. Id. at 1253. “When the 

explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there 

can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this 

Court directly resolving it.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

 

1

Burton’s presentence investigation report (PSI) identified two of the felony drug 

convictions as “Cannabis, Sell, Manufacture, Deliver, Possession with Intent,” and the third 

felony drug conviction as “Cocaine Sell, Manufacture, Deliver, Possession with Intent.” The PSI 

did not identify the statute underlying these convictions, but the parties agree that Burton’s drug 

convictions were for violating Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a).

Case: 13-13340 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 2 of 5 
3

Under § 2K2.1, the defendant’s offense level increases to 24 if he has two 

prior felony convictions for either a crime of violence or a “controlled substance 

offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). The term “controlled substance offense” as 

used in § 2K2.1, means:

an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for 

a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import, 

export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a 

counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a 

counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, 

distribute, or dispense.

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) (emphasis added); see also 2K2.1(a)(2) cmt. n.1 (providing 

that § 4B1.2(b)’s definition of “controlled substance offense” applies to offense 

level enhancements under § 2K2.1). 

A violation of Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a) falls squarely within U.S.S.G. 

§ 4B1.2(b)’s definition of a “controlled substance offense.” As a violation of 

Florida criminal law, it is an “offense under federal or state law.” See U.S.S.G. 

§ 4B1.2(b). Given that a § 893.13(a)(1) cocaine offense is a second degree felony 

that carries a fifteen-year maximum prison term and a § 893.13(a)(1) cannabis

offense is a third degree felony that carries a five-year maximum prison term, these 

§ 893(a)(1) offenses meet U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b)’s requirement that the state offense 

be punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. See Fla. Stat. 

§§ 893.13(1)(a)(1)-(2); 893.03(2)(a); 775.082(3)(c)-(d). And, by making it 

unlawful “to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, 

Case: 13-13340 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 3 of 5 
4

manufacture, or deliver” cannabis and cocaine, Florida Statutes § 893.13(a)(1) 

clearly “prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a 

controlled substance . . . or the possession of a controlled substance . . . with intent 

to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense,” as defined in U.S.S.G. 

§ 4B1.2(b). The district court’s treatment of Beasley’s convictions was not 

erroneous, much less plain error, under the language of § 4B1.2(b).

Burton argues that a § 893.13(a)(1) violation can never be a controlled 

substance offense in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) because only knowledge of the presence 

of the substance, but not its illicit nature, is an element of a § 893.13(1)(a) offense. 

See State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 415-16, 423 (Fla. 2012); see also Shelton v. 

Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 691 F.3d 1348, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 

S. Ct. 1856 (2013) (explaining that the Florida legislature’s 2002 amendment to 

§ 893.13(1)(a) “did not completely eliminate mens rea from Florida drug crimes; it

converted one aspect of mens rea [the illicit nature knowledge] from an element of 

the crime into an affirmative defense). However, the plain language of § 4B1.2(b)

does not require knowledge of the substance’s illicit nature for an offense to be a 

controlled substance offense. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) (requiring only that the 

state law “prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of 

a controlled substance”). Thus, Burton cannot show plain error.

Case: 13-13340 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Burton relies on Donawa v. United States Attorney General, 735 F.3d 1275 

(11th Cir. 2013), but Donawa has no application here. Donawa involved whether

an alien’s conviction under Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a) qualified as an 

“aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which defines the 

term to include drug trafficking offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). Donawa, 

735 F.3d at 1280. Burton’s reliance on Descamps v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 

133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), is similarly misplaced. Descamps concluded that a

defendant’s prior California burglary conviction did not qualify as a “violent 

felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Descamps, 133 

S. Ct at 2285-86. Given that Descamps and Donawa address other federal statutes 

and do not address whether an offense under Florida Statutes § 893.13(1)(a) is a 

controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), their holdings cannot 

establish plain error in this case.

For these reasons, Burton has not shown plain error. See Castro, 455 F.3d at 

1253. Accordingly, we affirm Burton’s 70-month sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-13340 Date Filed: 05/07/2014 Page: 5 of 5