FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 31, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 18 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 14 04 1- CR-KM M UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us PATRICK FR EDERICK W ILLIAMS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 31 , 20 09 ) Befo re DUBINA an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es , andRESTANI, Ju dg e. * DUBINA, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Honora ble J ane Restani, Chief J ud ge o f t h e United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby designation.App el la ntPatric k F red eri ckW il li am s ap pe al s h is li fe s en te nc e, im po se d o n rem an d, fo r po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te crac k c oc ai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . W e p rev io us ly rem an de d t hi s ca se to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r co m pl ianc e wit h 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (c)( 1) , requi rin g t he di st ric t co urt t o s ta te th e reas on s fo r gi vi ng W il li am s a l ife sen te nc e an d t o e xp la in why th e se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 43 8 F .3d12 72 , 12 74 –7 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 06 ) (“ W

il li ams I ”). In W il li ams I , we: (1 ) he ldth at“ itwas n oterro r to enha nc e W il li am s’[s] sen te nc e o n t he ba si s o f pr io r co nv ic ti on s p ro pe rly no te d i n t he pr es en te nc e rep ort (P SI); ” (2 ) fo un d “ no co ns ti tu ti on al Boo ker erro r in ass ig ni ng 1 to W il li am s a b as e o ffen se lev el of 3 0, the fig ur e u se d fo r cra ckoff en se s i nv ol vi ng be twee n 3 5 a nd50 gra m s; ” (3 ) reject edW il li am s’s “ cl ai m th atth e tr ia l co urt co m m it te d re ve rs ib le Boo ker

erro r by con st ru in g t he sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s as m an da to ry ;” an d (4 ) reject edW il li am s’s “ cl ai m th athi s s en te nc e m

us t b e v acat ed be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto in qu ire ‘ whe th er h e aff irms or d en ie s tha t h e h as be enpre vi ou sl y

co nv ic te d a s al le ge d i n t he in fo rm at io n.’” Id. at 1 27 3– 74 (fo ot no te ad de d) (qu ot in g 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 1( b) ). In W il li ams I , we als o d en ie d Wil li am s’s cl ai m th atth e d is tri ctco urt v io la te d h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts by con si de rin g

United States v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. C t. 738, 160 L . Ed. 2d 621 (2005). 1 2pr io r co nv ic ti on s t ha t wer e n otin cl ud edin th e in di ct m en t n orfou ndby a j ury . Id. I. Inth is ap pe al , W il li am s ar gu es th athi s l ife sen te nc e was pro cedur al ly un reas on ab le be cau se at r es en te nc in g t he di stric t co urt treat edth e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , im pr op erl y cal cu la te d t he gu id el in e ran ge , fai le d t o co ns id er the 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, an d fa il edto ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e b y

rel y in g o n u np ro ve n fa ct s fr om arre stwarran ts an d s ta te m en ts th athe m ad e whi le ass ert in g h is rig htto co nt es t h is gu il t attri al . Spe ci fic al ly, he as se rts th atby deci di ng to co ns tru e th e p rev io us m an da te gi ve n b y th is co urt na rro wly, an d fa il in g t o c on si de r th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i n o rd er t o i m po se a le ss er se nt en ce, the di st ric t co urt treat edth e g ui de li ne s as m an da to ry , invi ol at io n o f Boo ker . W il li am s al so arg ue s t ha t h e was no t a c aree r of fen de r be cau se hi s b at te ry of a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer ( “ BOLEO”) co nv ic ti on was n ota cri m e o f vi ol en ce un de r U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es Man ua l § 4B 1.1 (a). Will ia m s re li es on an in te rv en in g F lo rid a Supr em e Co urt d eci si on th athe ldth atBOLEO is n ota cri m e of vi ol en ce. Se e Sta te v. Hear ns , 96 1 S o. 2 d 2 11 , 21 2 (F la . 20 07 ) (h ol di ng th at ba tt ery of a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer i s n ota “ fo rci bl e fel on y ” u nd er Fl or id a’s vi ol en t ca reercri m in al st atut e). 3II.

W e rev ie w de no vo whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt co m pl ie d wi th our m an da te . Uni te d Sta tes v. Amedeo , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 29 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , __ _ U.S.

__ _, 1 28 S. Ct. 6 71 , 16 9 L. Ed. 2 d 5 26 (20 07 ). Whe re we i ss ue a li m it edm an da te ,

“ th e tr ia l co urt i s re st ric te d i n t he ran ge of i ss ue s i t m ay co ns id er o n re m an d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Da vis , 32 9 F .3d12 50 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Part ic ul arl y wher e th is co urt h ol ds th atth ere i s n o m eri t t o apa rty’ s o bjec ti on s t o h is sen te nc e o th er th anth atforwhi ch th e co urt i ss ue s a r em an d, the di stric t co urt i s fo recl os edfro m ad dr es si ng an y

of t he ot he r se nt en ci ng is su es pre vi ou sl y rai se d. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta may o , 80 F.3d15 14 , 15 20 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). A di st ric t co urt’s as se rti on of juri sd ic ti on ov er m at te rs ou ts id e th e sc op e o f su ch a m an da te co ns ti tu te s an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Id. Mo reo ve r, a sp eci fic m an da te is no t s ub ject t o i nt erp ret at io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mes a , 24 7 F .3d11 65 , 11 70 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

“ Und er the law o f th e cas e d oc tri ne , bo th th e d is tri ctco urt an d t he co urt o f ap pe al s ar e b ou ndby find in gs of f actan d c on cl us io ns of l aw m ad e b y th e co urt o f ap pe al s i n apri or

ap pe al of t he same case .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sti ns on , 97 F.3d46 6, 46 9 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 6) . The ex cep ti on s t o t he law o f th e cas e d oc tri ne are (1 ) th e pr es en ta ti on of n ew ev id en ce, o r (2 ) anin te rv en in g c ha ng e in co nt ro ll in g l aw, or

4(3 ) th atth e ap pe ll at e d eci si on is cle arl y erro ne ou s an d wo ul d re su ltin m an ife st in jus ti ce i f im

pl em en te d. Li tma n v . Mas s. Mu t. Li fe Ins . Co. , 82 5 F .2d15 06 , 15 10 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) . III. In W il li ams I , we rem an de d t he cas e b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto co m pl y with § 35 53 (c)( 1) by offer in g “ no reas on for th e li fe s en te nc e itele ct edto im po se up on 26 y ear- ol d Wil li am s.” 4 38 F.3dat 1 27 4. Pu rs ua ntto § 3 55 3( c)(1 ), a “ co urt, atth e ti m e o f se nt en ci ng , sh al l s ta te in op enco urt the reas on s fo r it s im po si ti on of the pa rti cu la r se nt en ce, an d, i f th e se nt en c[i ng ] . . . rang e ex ceed s 2 4 m on th s, the reas onforim po si ng a se nt en ce ata pa rti cu la r po in t wi th in th e ran ge .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( c)(1 ). Und er Boo ker , th e d is tri ctco urt n eedno t s ta te on th e reco rdth atitha s ex pl ic it ly con si de redeach § 3 55 3( a) fa ct oran d n eedno t d is cu ss each fact or . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). Rathe r,

“ anackno wled gm en t b y

th e d is tri ctco urt tha t i t h as co ns id eredth e d efen da nt ’s arg um en ts an d t he fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a) i s s uf fic ie nt .” Id. The wei gh t acco rd edto th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i s wi th in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is cret io n. Se e Amede o , 48 7 F .3dat 8 32 . Ourrem an d was forth e li m it edpu rp os e o f co m pe ll in g t he di stric t co urt t o co m pl y with § 35 53 (c)( 1) an d d idno t re qu ire a reca lc ul at io n o f ei th er Will ia m s’s 5se nt en ci ng ran ge or t he sen te nc e im po se d. Ou r m an da te m erel y requi redth atth e di st ric t co urt p ro vi de reas on s fo r th e li fe s en te nc e itim po se d, b utwe ot he rwis e fo un d tha t the sen te nc e was reas on ab le . Upo n re m an d, the di st ric t co urt p ro vi de d reas on s i n a cco rdwith o urm an da te an d Boo ker . Thu s, we co nc lu de th at W il li am s’s s en te nc e was no t p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le . IV. As p rev io us ly dis cu ss ed , ou r li m it edm an da te res tri ct edth e d is tri ctco urt fro m rev is it in g i ss ue s o n wh ic h we a ffi rm eddu rin g t he fir stap pe al , in cl ud in g whe th er Will iam s’s s en te nc e sh ou ldbe en ha nc edbe cau se of c ert ai n p rio r co nv ic ti on s. Ho wev er, b ecau se on e ex cep ti on to th e m an da te rul e is foran in te rv en in g c ha ng e in co nt ro ll in g l aw, we wil l co ns id er wh ethe r two in te rv en in g cas es th atW il li am s ci te s co ns ti tu te a ch an ge in co nt ro ll in g l aw si nc e th e ti m e o f ou r fi rs t d eci si on th atsh ou ldbe ap pl ie d n ow n ot withs ta nd in g o urm an da te . W il li am s cl ai m s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin cla ss ifyin g h im as acare er o ffen de r ba se d o n a n e arl ie r BOLEO con vi ct io n b ecau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt rece nt ly hel d t ha t a B OLEO con vi ct io n i s n ota “ fo rci bl e fel on y ” fo r th e p ur po se s of sen te nc e en ha nc em en t u nd er Fl or id a’s vi ol en t ca reercri m in al st atut e. Se e Hea rn s , 96 1 S o. 2 d a t 2 12 . W e ad dr es se d a ndreject edth is ve ry arg um en t i n Uni te d Sta tes v. J

oh ns on , 52 8 F .3d13 18 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), cer t gra nt ed , __ _S . Ct. 6__

_, 2 00 9 WL 42 50 80 (Feb . 23 , 20 09 ). Altho ug h Jo hn so n is pe nd in g re vi ew in th e Supr em e Co urt, i t i s s ti ll co nt ro ll in g p rece de nt . Se e Rit te r v. Th ig pe n , 82 8 F.2 d 6 62 , 66 5– 66 (11 th Cir . 19 87 )(“ A gra ntof c ert io rari do es no t co ns ti tu te ne w la w.”). In Jo hn so n , we hel d t ha t the is su e o f whe th er a fe de ral st atut e (i n t ha t ca se th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act) ap pl ie s t o t he st at e la w def in edcri m e o f ba tt ery is a fed eral qu es ti on , no t a s ta te on e. Thu s, Hea rn s do es no t o ve rru le th is co urt’s op in io n i n Uni te d Sta tes v. Gl ov er , 43 1 F .3d74 4, 7 49 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), whi ch he ld th ata BOLEO con vi ct io n i s a c rime of v io le nc e fo r pu rp os es of t he fed eral se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . W il li am s ar gu es th atou r ho ld in g i n Glo ver m us t b e reco ns id eredinli gh t o f anin te rv en in g S up rem e Co urt d eci si on , Begayv. Uni te d St at es , 55 3 U.S. _

__ , 12 8 S . Ct. 1 58 1 (2 00 8) . In Begay , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d th atth e fel on y

of driv in g u nd er the in flu en ce i s n ota “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e la ng ua ge of t he Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 20 06 ), in pa rt b ecau se “ [i]t i s s im pl y to o u nl ik e th e [1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (ii )] lis te d ex am pl es . . . to be li ev e th atCo ng res s i nt en de d t he pro vi si on to co ve r it .” 55 3 U.S. __ _, 1 28 S. Ct. at15 84 . Alth ou gh Begaypro vi de s g ui da nc e fo r de fin in g a vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA o r anan al og ou s s en te nc in g s ta tu te , we do no t in te rp retit s h ol di ng to requi re a d iff eren t o ut co m e in th is cas e o r a ree xam in at io n

7of

ou r ho ld in g i n Glo ver . Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in cl as si fy in g Wil li am s as a care er o ffen de r. On re m an d, the di st ric t co urt co m pl ie d wi th our li m it edm an da te by giv in g reas on s fo r se nt en ci ng W il li am s t o l ife im pr is on m en t, i nc lu di ng hi s fa il ur e to tak e res po ns ib il it y

forhi s ac ti on s, h is len gt hy crim in al hi st ory , th e n eedto pro m ot e res pe ctforlaw, d et erre nc e, an d t he ne edto pro te ctth e p ub li c. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (c). Be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly com pl ie d wi th ou r li m it edrem an d a nd W il li am s’s ar gu m en ts are m eri tl es s, we af firm W il li am s’s s en te nc e. AFFIRMED.

8