### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 16, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 05- 12248 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 3 1 4 - C R - T - 2 4 MAP 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 D A R I A N A N T W A N W A T T S , 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

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 16, 2005) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N 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: D ari an A n tw an W att s w as i n d i ct ed fo r p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a2

c onvi c t e d f

e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) a nd 924( e ) . T he i ndi c tm e nt l i st ed hi s pri or conv i ct i on s f or pu rposes of § 9 24 (e ) a nd the A rm ed C ar ee r C r i m i na l ( “ A C C A ” ) pr ovi s i on, U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 4, a s tw o r obbe ry c onvi c t i ons a nd c o n v ic tio n s f

o rp o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e a n d c a rry in g a c o n c e a le d w e ap o n . T h e te s tim o n y a t tr ia l e s tab lis h e d th a t W a tts w a s w a v in g a g u n in th e a ir dur i ng a bl oc k pa r ty i n R i ve rF r ontP a r k. P ol i c e or de r e d W a tt s t o dr op the w e apon, bu tW att s r an. P ol i ce gave chase , du ri ng w hi ch the gu n fel l on the grou nd . A ft er the pol i c e c a ughtW a tt s a nd r e a d hi m hi s r i ght s , W a tt s s t a t e d tha the boughtthe gun f o rp r o te c tio n a n d th a t h e k n e w it w a s ille g a l f o rh im to p o s s e s s it. W a tt s s t i pul a t e d tha the ha d a pr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on, a nd, the r e f or e , the gove rnm e ntdi d noti ntr oduc e e vi de nc e of hi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons a ttr i a l . A tthe c lo s e o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c a s e a n d a g a in a t th e c lo s e o f a ll th e e v id e n c e , W a tts m ove d f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , a s s e r t i ng, i nt e ra l i a , tha tthe thr e e pr i or conv i ct i on s r equi re d for appl i ca t i on of § 9 24 (e ) a nd the A C C A had n otbeen pr ove n t o the j ury unde rB l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531, 159 L . E d. 2d 403 ( 2004) . T he c our tde ni e d the m ot i on, f i ndi ng tha tB l a ke l y di d not ap p ly to p r io rc o n v ic tio n s . T h e ju ry c o n v ic te d W a tts . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), a s s i gni ng a ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l of

24 unde rU . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( a ) ( 2) . T he pr oba t i on3

o ffi cer n o t ed th e fo l l o w i n g p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s: O n M ay 2 3 , 1 9 9 5 , W att s w as c onvi c t e d of

r obbe ry , a tt e m pt e d r obbe ry , pos s e s s i on of c oc a i ne , a nd c a rry i ng a conceal ed w eapo n. W i th a tw o-l evel i ncre as e und er§ 2 K 2. 1(b)(4), the adj ust ed offe nse l evel w as 26 , bu tthatl evel w as i ncre as ed t o 3 3 u nd erU . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 4(a) b ec au se W atts w as a c ar ee r c rim in al. T h e p ro b atio n o ff icerth en ca lcu lated W atts’s c r im in a l h is to ry a t le v e l V I , w h ic h r e s u lte d in a n a d v is o ry g u id e lin e r a n g e o f 2 3 5 to 29 3 m on ths i m pri sonm ent . U nd er§ 9 24 (e ), ho w ever , there w as a m andat ory m in im u m s e n te n c e o f

1 5 y e a r s im p r is o n m e n t. W a tt s obj e c t e d t o hi s c r i m i na l hi s t or y , a s s e r t i ng tha ta tl e a s tone of the c onvi c t i ons s houl d notha ve be e n c ount e d be c a us e he di d notha ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l . H e a l s o r e i t e r a t e d hi s obj e c t i on t o the appl i c a t i on of § 924( e ) a nd the A C C A be c a us e the j ury ha d notf ound tha the ha d thr e e pr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i ons th a t o c c u rr e d o n th r e e s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s . A t s e n te n c in g , w h ic h o c c u rr e d a f te rth e U .S . S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . –, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , the di s tr i c tc our ts us t a i ne d pa r tof W a tt s ’ s obj e c t i on t o hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s a nd r e duc e d hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory t o V , w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n a n a dvi s ory gui de l i ne r a n g e o f 2 1 0 to 2 6 2 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. A d d r e s s in g W a tts ’s B o o k e r( f o r m e r ly B l akel y) chal l enge, the courtno t ed thatthe i ss ue w as no tprov en t o the j uryWatts obje c te d th at the c ourt c ould not loo k b e hin d th eof fens eof c onvic tio n tothefac ts 1 of the c harg es to deter

mine if it was a violent fe lony under theACCA. 4 b e c a u s e W a tts h a d s tip u la te d to h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n f o rp u rp o s e s o f

§ 9 2 2 ( g ) . A l tho ug h W att s r equest ed a j ury tri al on hi s pri or conv i ct i on s, the courtfoun d that Bo o k e rd i d n o tr e q u i r e th e p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s b e p r o v e n t o a j u ry , e v e n a f t e rth e U . S. S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n S he pa r d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 544 U . S . –, 125 S . C t . 1254, – L . E d. 2d – ( 2005) . T he c our tthe n r e vi e w e d the c r i m i na l i nf or m a t i ons a nd j ud gm ent s a nd conv i ct i on s f rom W att s’ s pri or offe nses . T he courtno t ed that 1 W att s had been conv i ct ed of three offe nses on M ay 23 , 19 95 . A l tho ug h con vi ct ed on the sa m e day , W att s c om m i tt ed the offe nses on di ff er entdays . In ca se nu m ber 9 5 - 1 0 3 , W a tts w a s c o n v ic te d o f r o b b e ry th a t o c c u rr e d o n N o v e m b e r3 0 , 1 9 9 4 . W att s a l so had b ee n con vi ct ed i n cas e num ber 94-16 76 7 o f f ou r c ou nt s of r ob bery and o ne coun tof att em pt ed robb ery, as w el l as po ss es si on of m ar i j uana, w hi ch occurre d o n D ec em ber 5, 19 94 . F i nal l y, i n cas e num ber 94-02 14 8, W att s had been conv i ct ed of po ss es si on of cocai ne and carryi ng a c on ce al ed w eapo n, w hi ch o c c u rr e d o n F e b ru a ry 1 6 , 1 9 9 4 . B as ed on these pri or conv i ct i on s, the courtdet erm i ned t hatW att s had three qua l i f y i ng of f e ns e s unde r§ 924( e ) a nd the A C C A . T he c our tc ons i de r e d the a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s a n d th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e a n d f o u n d th a t a s e nt e nc e of

210 m onths i m pr i s onm e ntm e tthe goa l s of 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f

or5

p u n is h m e n t, p r o te c tio n , a n d d e te rr e n c e . O n appe a l , W a tt s a r gue s tha ta ny e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on hi s pr i or c onvi c t i ons ha d t o be pr ove n t o a j ur y be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubti n l i ghtof B ooke ra nd S he pa r d. H e a l s o c ha l l e nge s w he the rhi s pr i orc onvi c t i on f orc a rry i ng a c o n c e a le d w e ap o n q u a lif ie d a s a p r e d ic a te o f

f e n s e , a lth o u g h h e c o n c e d e s th a t th is c our tha s r e

j e c t e d hi s a r gum e nt . F i na l l y , he c ont e nds tha tthe c our tf a i l e d t o m a ke th e r e q u is ite f

in d in g th a t th e o f

f e n s e s o c c u rr e d o n th r e e s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s . B e c a u s e Wa tt s p r e s e r v e d h i s B o o k e rc h a l l e n g e i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , we r e v ie w th e s e n te n c e s d e n o v o b u t w ill r e v e r s e o n ly if th e e rr o rw a s n o t h a r m le s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a z , 405 F . 3d 946, 948 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . P ur e l y l e ga l que s t i ons a l s o a r e r e vi e w e d de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m a c ho- I ba r gue n, 410 F . 3d 1307, 13 11 (11t h C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, – S . C t . – (20 05 ). “ W hether tw o cri m es const i tut e a si ng l e c ri m i nal epi sode or tw o separ at e f el on i es for purpo se s of s ec t i on 92 4(e) i s a n i s s ue of l a w , w hi c h [ thi s c our t ] r e vi e w [ s ] de novo. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l e s , 290 F . 3d 13 41 , 13 46 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). A d e f e n d a n ti s s u b

j e c tt o e n h a n c e d p e n a l t i e s u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ( e ) a n d th e A CCA i f he “ vi ol a t e s s e c t i on 922( g) of thi s t i t l e a nd ha s thr e e pr e vi ous c onvi c t i ons . . . f or a vi ol e ntf

e l ony ora s e r i ous drug of f e ns e , orboth, c om m i tt e d on oc c a s i ons d i f f e r e n tf r o m o n e a n o th e r . ” 1 8 U. S . C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ; U. S . S . G.Although Watts preserved his objec tion to the court’s factual finding s that h i s offenses 2 were pre dic ate of

fens e s, Watts did no t ob

je c t to thefac ts o f his p ri or c onvic tio ns . B e c a

us ehedid not object to these finding s, they aredeeme d admitted. United S tates v. Burg e, 407 F .3d 1183, 1191 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 F .3d 551 (2005). 6 § 4 B 1 .4 , c o m m e n t. ( n .1 ) . W a tts ’s a r g u m e n ts h a v e n o m e r it. F ir s t, th is c o u r t h a s r e je c te d W a tts ’s c la im tha tpr i orc onvi c t i ons m us tbe pr ove n t o a j ury , a nd thi s hol di ng i s nota l t e r e d by S hepard. U ni t ed S t at es v. G l ov er , N o. 04 -167 45 , m anuscr i ptop . at8-9 (11 C i r. th N ov. 29, 2005) ; C a m a c ho- I ba r gue n, 410 F . 3d a t1311; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O r dunoM ir e le s , 4 0 5 F .3 d 9 6 0 , 9 6 2 - 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 2 2 3 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . S ec on d, there i s no S i xth A m endm entvi ol at i on w hen t he courtdet erm i nes w h e th e ra p r io rc o n v ic tio n is a q u a lif y in g o f f e n s e . G lo v e r , m a n u s c r ip t o p . a t 9 2 ( di s c us s i ng “ c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e ” unde rU . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 2) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a l l e gos - A gue r o, 409 F . 3d 1274, 1276- 77 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( di s c us s i ng qua l i f y i ng o f f e n s e s u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ii) ) . T h i rd , W att s’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n fo r carrying a co n ceal ed w eap o n i s a qu al i fy i ng offe nse. U ni t ed S t at es v. H al l , 77 F . 3d 39 8, 40 1 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). F i na l l y , a l though the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notm a ke a n e xpl i c i tf i ndi ng tha tthe of f e ns e s oc c urr e d on thr e e s e pa r a t e oc c a s i ons , thi s e rr orw a s ha r m l e s s a nd doe s not re qu i re re vers al . A tse nt enci ng , the courtre vi ew ed the i nform at i on fr om ea chAlthough Watts contends that the c ourt’s review of theinformatio n an d judgment and 3 conviction was improper, his argument is mispl ace d. As th i s co urt explained “[w] hen a c ourt considers theappli cat i o n of a sentencingenhanc ement it should generally follow a ‘c ateg orical approach’ a

nd ‘consider

only the fact of c onvict i o n and the statutory definition of the prior offense.’”United States v. Burg e, 407 F .3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 F .3d 551 (2 00 5) . H ow e ver, “ thedis tric t c ourt ‘m ay loo k b e hin d th e judgment o f c onvic tio n when it is impossibl e to deter

mine from the f

ac e o f the judgment or statute whether the prior crime satisfies the enha ncement statute.’” Id. In such cases, the dis trict court’s review “is limit ed to the t erms of the cha rg ing document, the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judgeand defendant . . . or t o some comparable judicial rec ord of this information.” I d. (citingShepard, 125 S.Ct . at 1263). See, e.g ., United States v. Her nandez-Mar

tinez, 382 F.3d 1304 ( 11 Cir. 2004) (holding 4 th that prior sentences w erenot consolidated and, there fore , not related under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 where the offenses occurre d on different days and involved different victims, were dockete d separately and re c e ive d s epa

rate ju dgmen ts even th ough th e y weresentenc e d b e fo rethesamejudg eon thesame day ). 7 of f e ns e a nd l i s t e d the da t e s on w hi c h the of f e ns e s oc c ur r e d e ve n though the o ffen ses w ere ad

j u d i cat ed an d sen t en ced o n th e sam e d ay. 3 H er e, the courtprop er l y r evi ew ed the chargi ng do cum ent s t o d et erm i ne that th e o f f e n s e s o c c u rr e d o n th r e e s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s a s r e q u ir e d b y th e s ta tu te . A c c or di ng t o the i nf

or m a t i ons , W a tt s c om m i tt e d hi s pr i orof f e ns e s on F e brua ry 16, N ove m be r30, a nd D e c e m be r5, 1994. T he f a c ttha the w a s a dj udi c a t e d gui l ty a nd s e nt e nc e d f

ora l l thr e e on the s a m e da y doe s nota l t e rthe f a c ttha the c om m i tt e d the o f f e n s e s o n s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s . T h e r e f o r e , a s th e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e s ta tu te 4 r e qui r e s , W a tt s ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i ons oc c ur r e d on “ oc c a s i ons di f f e r e ntf r om one a n o th e r ” a n d , th e r e f

o r e , w e r e q u a lif

y in g o f f e n s e s . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . T hus , e ve n i f

the c our te rr e d by note xpl i c i t l y f i ndi ng tha tthe of

f e ns e s oc c ur r e d on8

d i f f e r e n to c c a s i o n s , th e e rr o rw a s h a r m l e s s , a n d w e A F F I R M.