FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 13, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 59 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 9: 09 -cv -8 05 82 -J IC, 9: 05 -cr- 80 13 3- JI C-1 ANTHONYDIGGS, 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 - App el la nt , vers 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, M ARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ant ho ny Digg s ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, orco rrec t h is 18 8- m on th pri so n s en te nc e, co nt en di ngth atth e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y sen te nc edhi m

as acare er o ffen de r un de r th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . I. Dig gs pl ead edgu il ty to, an d was co nv ic te d o f, po ss es si on with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e cra ckco cai ne invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . The p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt r eco un te d Di gg s’ cri m in al hi st ory , whi ch in cl ud edon e co nv ic ti on forcarry in g aco nc eal edfir earm , on e co nv ic ti on forcarry in g a co nc eal edweap on , andtwo co nv ic ti on s fo r res is ti ng arre stwith v io le nc e. Bas ed on th e co nv ic ti on s fo r carry in g aco nc eal edfir earm an d c arrying a co nc eal ed weap on an d o ne of t he co nv ic ti on s fo r res is ti ng arre stwith v io le nc e, th e PSR reco m m en de d c la ss ifyin g Di gg s as a care er o ffen de r un de r Uni te d S ta te s Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es § 4 B1 .1 (No v. 2 00 5) . Bec au se th e st atut ory

m ax im um pri so n s en te nc e fo r hi s co nv ic ti on was 4 0 y ears , see 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(B) , hi s s ta tu s as a care er o ffen de r in crea se d h is off

en se lev el to 34 , see U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(b ). Sub tra ct in g 3 lev el s fo r acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , hi s t ot al off en se lev el was 3 1. Di gg s’ cla ss ifi cat io n as a care er o ffen de r au to m at ic al ly set h is cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory at VI, s ee i d., bu t tha t cl as si fic at io n m ad e n o d iff eren ce t o Di gg s’ cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory be cau se he als o h ad17 cri m in al hi st ory po in ts . His t ot al off

en se lev el of 3 1 a nd 2hi s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory of VI yiel de d agu id el in es ran ge of 1 88 to 23 5 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. The co urt ad op te d t he PSR’s fi nd in gs an d s en te nc edDig gs to a 18 8- m on th pri so n t erm . Dig gs di d n otfil e a d ire ctap pe al . Ins te ad , he f il eda 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n s eek in g re se nt en ci ng ba se d o n the Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si oninBeg ay v. Uni te d S ta te s, 5 53 U.S. 13 7, 1 28 S.Ct . 15 81 (20 08 ), an d o ur de ci si on inUni te d St at es v. Arch er, 5 31 F.3d13 47 (11 thCir . 20 08 ), arg ui ng th athi s co nv ic ti on s fo r carry in g aco nc eal edfir earm an d c arrying a co nc eal edweap on were n ot co nv ic ti on s fo r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce fo r th e p ur po se of t he care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d Di gg s’ m ot io n, fi nd in g t ha t, ev enif carry in g aco nc eal edfir earm an d c arrying a co nc eal edweap on were n otcri m es of vi ol en ce, Dig gs st il l qua li fie d a s a c aree r of fen de r be cau se he ha d t wo co nv ic ti on s fo r res is ti ng arre stwith v io le nc e, whi chwere co nv ic ti on s fo r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Dig gs m ov edfora cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y , whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt gr an te d o n t he fol lo win g que st io n: “ Doe s a F lo rid a p rio r co nv ic ti on forRes is ti ng Arres t wi th Vio le nc e u nd er Fl a. St at . § 8 43 .01 qu al ify as a ‘crim e o f vi ol en ce’ un de r U.S.S.G. Sect io n 4 B1 .2(a ), jus ti fy in g aCare er Offe nd er s en te nc in g en ha nc em en t? ” II. 3W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a § 22 55 m ot io n a s a m ix edqu es ti on

of law an d fa ct . W e rev ie w forcle ar err orth e co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actan d re vi ew de no vo it s ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th os e fac ts . Rho de v. Un it edSta te s, 5 83 F.3d 12 89 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Our re vi ew is “ li m it edto th e is su e[] sp eci fie d i n t he COA,” id ., bu t we re adth e COA to in cl ud e whe th er Di gg s p ro cedur al ly defau lt ed hi s cl ai m , whi ch is anis su e we m us t ad dr es s b efo re co ns id eri ng th e cl ai m ’s m eri ts , se e Wrigh t v . Sec’y

forDep’t o f Co rr., 27 8 F .3d12 45 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ); McC oy v. Uni te d S ta te s, 2 66 F.3d12 45 , 12 48 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

“ Und er the pro cedur al de fau ltrul e, a d efen da ntge ne ral ly m us t ad vanc e an av ai labl e ch al le ng e to a cri m in al co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e o n d ire ctap pe al or e ls e th e d efen da ntis ba rredfro m pre se nt in g t ha t cl ai m

ina § 2 25 5 [moti on ]. ” McKa y v. Un it edSta te s, 6 57 F.3d11 90 , 11 96 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . The re ar e two ex cep ti on s t o t he pro cedur al de fau ltrul e: “ (1 ) fo r cau se an d pr ejud ic e, or(2) fora m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e, oractua l i nn oc en ce.” Id . “ Und er the actua l i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on . . . a m ov an t’s p ro cedur al de fau ltis ex cu se d i f he can sh ow t ha t h e is actua ll y

in no cen t ei th er o f th e cri m e o f co nv ic ti onor, i n t he cap it al se nt en ci ng co nt ex t, o f th e se nt en ce i ts el f.” Id . In M cKay, we he ldth atth e actua l in no cen ce ex cep ti on to th e p ro cedur al de fau ltrul e d oe s n otap pl y wher e a m ov an t arg ue s t ha t the pre di cat e o ffen se s t ha t warran te d c la ss ifyin g h im as acare er 4of

fen de r were n otcri m es of v io le nc e u nd er the gu id el in es y etdo es no t ar gu e th at he di d n otco m

m itth os e p red ic at e o ffen se s. Id . at 1 19 9. Ourho ld in g i n M cKay co nt ro ls th e o ut co m e o f th is cas e. Dig gs

“pr oc edur al ly defau lt edhi s cl ai m th athe was e rro ne ou sl y

sen te nc edas acare er of fen de r be cau se he di d n otrai se th atcla im on di rectap pe al —i nd eed , a di rect ap pe al was n otev enfil ed .” Id . at 1 19 6. He h as no t ar gu edth athi s p ro cedur al de fau ltsh ou ldbe ex cu se d fo r cau se . Nor h as he arg ue d t ha t h e d idno t co m m itth e un de rlyin g p red ic at e o ffen se s. His cla im is pro cedur al ly barre d. AFFIRMED.

5