[DO NOT PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 06 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 7 :1 0- cr-0 00 33 -HL-TQL-1 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 Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us FREEMAN MI TCHELL MORRIS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st15 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Free m anMi tc he ll Mo rri s ap pe al s h is 21 0- m on th sen te nc e o f im pr is on m en t, atth e b ot to m

of t he ap pl ic ab le advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge , im

po se d a fte r a jury Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 1 of 13fo un d h im

gu il ty of on e co un t o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 3,4
m ethylen ed io xy-m etha m

ph et am in e, al so kn own as M DMA orEcst acy (“ MDMA” ), in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(C)
. On ap pe al , 1 Mo rri s ar gu es forth e fi rs t t im e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinen hanc in g h is
se nt en ce u nd er the care er-o ffen de r gu id el in e. Mo rri s fu rth er co nt en ds th athi s se nt en ce was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le
.

I. Mo rri s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itsen te nc edhi m as acare er of fen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1, wh ic h e nh an cedhi s ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es se nt en ci ng ran ge fro m

11 0 t o 1 37 m on th s t o 2 10 to 24 0 m on th s. He cl ai m s t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt i nc orrect ly det erm in edth athi s p rev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r ba tt ery on a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer a ndob st ru ct in g alaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer wer e

“ cri m es of v io le nc e.” He u rg es th atrem an d i s ad di ti on al ly pro pe r be cau se th e co urt b el ow d idno t s pe ci fy un de r whi ch claus e o f U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2 the se off en se s qu al ifi edan d fa il edto co nduc t i ts an al y si s p ur su an t t o t he m od ifi edcat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch
.

More spe cifica lly , the jury conclude d that Morris possessed with the intent to 1 distribute 520.18 gr ams of benzylpiperazine (“ BZ P”) and 28.26 grams of a mix ture of MD MA and B Z P. 2

Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 2 of 13Whe th er a p art ic ul ar co nv ic ti on is a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” u nd er the care erof fen de r pr ov is io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es is ord in ari ly a qu es ti on of l aw th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Pan tl e, 63 7 F .3d11 72 , 11 74 (11 thCir
. 20 11 ). Howev er, wh ere, as he re, the de fen da ntfai le d t o o bjec t t o h is pri or co nv ic ti on s b ei ng de si gn at edcri m es of v io le nc e, we rev ie w th atasp ectof t he
se nt en ci ng cal cu la ti on forpl ai n e rro r. Id. 2 The care er-o ffen de r pr ov is io ns of t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de th ata de fen da ntis a care er o ffen de r if , am on g o th er re qu ire m en ts , he h as two pri or fel on y co nv ic ti on s i nv ol vi ng eit he r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e The doc trine of invited er ror a rguably applies her e. See United States v. Br annan, 2 562 F.3d 1300, 1306- 07 (11th Cir. 2009) (e x plaining that when a pa rty induces or invites a district court to commit error , this Court i s prec luded from r eviewingthat err or on appe al). Morris’s counse l not only failed to objec t in the court below, but a lso ex pressly agree d that Morris’s prior c onvictions qualified as c rimes of violenc e. See, e .g ., District Court order, D ocket No. 49 at 2 (“ The two prior s are Battery on a L aw Enf

orce ment Offic er a

nd Obstruction of Offic er. These offenses are c rimes of violence , but neither off ense involved a

wea pon nor did the office rs sustain injuries.”) ( emphasis adde d); District Court order , Docke t No. 69 at 5-6; see also Appellant’s B r. at 9 (“ [Defense ] C ounsel argued that though Mr. Morris’s prior convictions for battery on a law e nforc ement off icer and obstruction of a

n office r . . . fa ll under the broa d crimes of violence definition for c are er of fende r purpose s, eac h never theless over -re prese nts the seriousness of his c riminal history . . . .”). N ever

theless, out of an a

bundance of ca

ution, and beca use neither

party has addr essed the invited e rror doctrine, w e apply

plain err or. Under plain err or re view, a c halleng ing pa rty must show there is “( 1) er ror, ( 2) that is plain, and (3) that aff

ects substantial rights. I f all three conditions are me t, an appe llate cour t may then exercise its discre tion to noti ce a forf eited er ror, but only

if (4) the err or seriously aff ects the f airne ss, integrity , or public re putation of judicial proce eding .” United States v. Rodrigue z, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotations and c itation omit ted). “ It is the law of this circuit that, at lea st wherethe explicit l anguag e of a statute or rule does not specif ically resolve a n issue, there can be no plain err or whe re the re is no pre cede nt from the Supreme Court or this Court directly

resolvingit.” United States v. L ejar de-Rada , 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 3

Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 3 of 13of

fen se . U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 (a). Th e car eer- of fen de r en ha nc em en t ch an ge s t he ap pl ic ab le ba se off

en se lev el an d t he cri min al hi st ory cat eg ory , us ua ll y

res ul ti ng in
anin crea se d g ui de li ne s i m pr is on m en t ra ng e. See § 4B 1.1 (b ). Und er § 4B 1.2 of th e gu id el in es , any st at e or fed eral of fen se t h a t is pu ni sh ab le by m or e th an on e y ear of im pr is on m en t can be a cri me of vi ol en ce i f i t f

i t s withi n on e of th ree cat eg or ie s. The fir st cat eg ory in cl ud es cri m es th at ha ve “ as an el em en t th e u s e , o r th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai n s t th e pe rs on of an ot he r . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1)
. The se co nd cat eg ory in cl ud es th e enum erat ed cri m es of “bu rg la ry o f a d well in g, ars on , or ex to rti on ” an d th os e in vo lv in g th e “us e of ex pl os iv es .” § 4B .1.2 (a)( 2)
. The th ird cat eg ory , s om et im es refe rred to as res idua l cl au se cri m es , in cl ud es th os e th at “ ot he rwis e in vo lv e[] co nduc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k of ph y si cal in jury to an ot he r.” Id
. Uni te d S ta te s v . Chi two od , 67 6 F .3d97 1, 9 77 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). W e g en eral ly em

pl oy the cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch to de te rm in e whe th er a cr im e is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Alex an de r, 60 9 F .3d12 60 , 12 53 -5 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ). “ [W] e co ns id er the off en se ge ne ric al ly . . . in t erm s o f ho w th e la w de fin es th e o ffen se an d n otinterm s o f ho w an i nd iv idua l o ffen de r m ig htha ve co m m it te d i t o n apa rti cu la r oc cas io n.” Beg ay v. Un it edSta te s, 5 53 U.S. 13 7, 1 41 , 12 8 S . Ct. 1 58 1, 1 58 4 (2 00 8)
. Howev er, i f th is an al y si s i s ambig uo us , or wh ere 3

In analy zing whethe r a c onviction is a crime of violence, w e ca

n rely on case s 3 interpre ting the Armed Car eer Criminal Act (“A CCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), be cause this Court has re peate dly

rea d the def

inition of “violent felony” under the ACCA as “virtua lly

identical” to the def inition of “crime of

violence” under § 4B 1.2. See United States v. Ar cher , 531 F.3d 1347, 1350 n.1, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). 4

Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 4 of 13“ th e cri m e fo r whi ch th e d efen dantwas c on vi ct eden co m pa ss es bo th co nduc t tha t co ns ti tu te s a c rime of v io le nc e an d c on du ctth atdo es no t,” we u se th e m od ifi ed cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch . Uni te d S ta te s v . Beck le s, 5 65 F.3d83 2, 8 42 -4 4 (1 1t h C ir. 20 09 ); s ee al so Jo hn so n v . Uni te d S ta te s, -- - U.S. ---,--- , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 26 5, 1 27 3 (2 01 0) . Und er thi s ap pr oa ch , a co urt m ay co nduc t a l im it edrev ie w of s o- cal le d Sh ep ardm at eri al s t o d et erm in e if th e o ffen se is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. See S he pa rd v. Un it edSta te s, 5 44 U.S. 13 , 26 , 12 5 S . Ct. 1 25 4, 1 26 3 (2 00 5) . If th e co nv ic ti on is ba se d o n agu il ty ple a, co urts m ay lo okto th e st atut ory

de fin it io n, the term s o f th e ch arg in g d oc um en t, the term s o f a wri tt enpl ea ag reem en t o r tr an sc rip t o f pl ea co ll oquy in wh ic h t he de fen da ntco nf irmed th e fac tu al ba si s fo r th e p le a, or ex pl ic itfactua l fi nd in gs by the jud ge to whi ch th e d efen dantass en te d. Id
. A. Bat tery on a La w Enfo rcement Of fic er Und er Fl or id a la w, when a si m pl e b at te ry

is co m m it te d o n alaw
en fo rcem en t o ffi cer, i t b eco m es th e se pa rat e o ffen se of b at te ry on a la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cer. Anin di vi du al co m m it s t he Flo rid a o ffen se of b atte ry when he (1) “ [a]ctu al ly andin te nt io na ll y to uc he s o r st rik es an ot he r pe rs on ag ai ns t the wil l o f th e o th er,” o r (2 ) “ [i]nt en ti on al ly caus es bo di ly harm to an ot he r pe rs on .” Fl a. St at . § 7 84 .03 (1 )(a) . This off en se is ord in ari ly a firs t-d eg ree m is de m ean or , id
.

5 Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 5 of 13§ 7 84 .03 (1 )(b ), bu t i s el ev at edto a th ird -d eg ree f el on y if i t i s co m

mit te d o n alawen fo rcem en t o ffi cer, i d. § 78 4.0 7( 2) (b ). Mo rri s’s ar gu m en t h in ge s o n t hi s C ou rt’s d eci si on inUni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 6 09 F.3d11 68 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The t hrus t o f th atde ci si on is th at“ th e factof aco nv ic ti on forfel on y ba tt ery on a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer i n F lo rid a, st an di ng alo ne , no lo ng er s at is fie s t he ‘ cri m e o f vi ol en ce’ enh an cem en t cr it eri a as de fin edun de r th e ‘ph y si cal for ce’ subd iv is io n o f se ct io n 4 B1 .2(a )(1 ) of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es .” Id . at 1 16 9- 70 . In Will iam s, we ex pl ai ne d t ha t, p ur su an t to Flo rid a’s ba tt ery st atut e, a p ers on co m mit s a b at te ry

by eng ag in g i n a ny of th e fo ll owi ng act s: “ actua ll y an d i nt en ti on al ly tou ch [in g],” “ in te nt io na ll y cau s[ in g] bo di ly harm ,” or“ in te nt io na ll y st r[i ki ng ]” the vi ct im . Id. at11 70 . Sig ni fic an tl y , ho wev er, the re was “no ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , th atwe [co ul d] co ns id er . . . to cl ari fy un de r whi ch ” p ro ng of t he ba tt ery st atut e Will ia m s h adbe enco nv ic te d; th at is , th e b at te ry

co nv ic ti onco ul d h av e b een ba se d o n n ot hi ng m or e th anth e m ere to uc hi ng of an o ffi cer. Id. Acco rd in gl y , to th e ex te ntth e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t 4
The Willi ams dec ision relied upon J ohnson, where in the Supreme Court 4 interpre ted the phra se “phy sical for ce” in the ACCA to “mean[] violent forc e—that is, forc e capa ble of c ausingphy sical pain or injury to another pe rson.” 130 S. Ct. at 1271. J ohnson holds that a F lorida batter

y conviction could not be c ateg orica lly labeled a s a “violent fe lony” bec ause the offe nse re quired only

slight, incidenta l phy sical conta ct. See id. at 1269, 1274. The Court declined to c onsider whe ther the battery conviction would have qualified unde r the re sidual clause ; evidently , “[t] he Gove rnment did not keep this option alive bec ause it disclaimed at sentenc ing a

ny relianc e upon [that] clause .” I d. at 1274. 6 Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 6 of 13th e b at te ry

on anoff ic er was a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the “ph y si cal for ce” c laus e, we se t as id e th e d is tri ctco urt’s ca reer -o ffen de r de si gn at io n a ndrem an de d fo r a ne w sen te nc in g. Id
. Howev er, as th e Gov ern m en t p os it s, b at te ry on a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer ha s t he po te nt ia l t o c reat e a co nf ro nt at io n l ead in g t o v io le nc e, th ereb y arg uabl y qu al ifyin g a s a c rime of v io le nc e u nd er the res idua l cl au se . At le as t two o f ou r 5 si st er ci rcu it s t ha t h av e ad dr es se d s im il ar b atte ry on anoff ic er o ffen se s h av e h el d th atth ey qu al ify un de r th e res idua l cl au se be cau se th ey in vo lv e a s uf

fic ie nt po te nt ia l ri skof s eri ou s i nju ry an d c on fro nt at io n. Se e, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 5 59 F.3d11 43 , 11 49 (10 th Cir . 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th atOkl ah om a co nv ic ti on forba tt ery on a po li ce o ffi cer qua li fie d a s a c rime of v io le nc e u nd er

We note that the only

information ava ilable re g arding Morris’s batter

y on an 5 office r convic tion comes from pa ragraph 37 of

his Presentenc e Investig ation Report (PSI ), which provides that Morris “swungat one of the offic ers with a c losed fist and struck a nother off icer about the fa ce,” and that he ha d to be tackle d by an off icer beca use he w as re sisting ar

rest. Be cause of the statutory

ambiguity

and bec ause Mor

ris did not object to the PSI ’s fa ctual acc ount, under the modified c ateg orica l approa ch, the district cour t likely could have relied on these fa cts—that wer e undisputed and de emed a dmitted—to find that the battery on a law enfor ceme nt office r convic tion was a c rime of violenc e under the “phy sical for ce” clause . See United States v. Be nnett, 472 F.3d 825, 832- 34 (11th Cir. 2006) (statingthat “cha lleng es to the fac ts contained in the PSImust be asserte d with specificity and cla rity” and holding

that “the district court did not err

in relying on the undisputed fac ts in Benne tt’s PS Ito determine that his prior convic tions were violent f elonies under

the ACCA”); see also United States v. B eckle s, 565 F.3d 832, 843 ( 11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “where ambiguity exis ts and the underlying conviction may

be examined,” in addition to Shepard materials, the district cour t “also may

base its factual f

indings on undisputed stateme nts found in the PSI , beca use they are fac tual finding s to which the def

endant ha s assented” ). 7 Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 7 of 13§ 4 B1 .2(a )’s res idua l cl au se be cau se , in te r a li a , “ [s ]uchba tt ery in vo lv es anov ert

actag ai ns t the po li ce o ffi cer—th ereb y no t o nl y in it ia ti ng

a co nf ro nt at io n, b ut ris ki ng a se rio us esc al at io n i n v io le nc e”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Danc y , 64 0 F .3d45 5, 46 9- 70 (1s t Ci r. 20 11 ) (co nc lu di ng th atMas sa ch us et ts co nv ic ti onof a ss au ltan d ba tt ery on anoff

ic er qua li fie d u nd er the res idua l cl au se of t he ACCA, be cau se it

“ ne arl y alwa y s p os es a se rio us ris k o f actua l o r po te nt ia l p hysic al for ce an d t he li ke li ho odof p hysic al in

jury,” andbe cau se th e se rio us ris k o f in jury is h ei gh te ne d by the factth at“ la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cers us ua ll y carry weap on s wh enon du ty”) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . In an y ev en t, Mo rri s h as cit edno bi nd in g p rece de ntfro m th e Supr em e Co urt o r th is Co urt re so lv in g t hi s i ss ue . See Un it edSta te s v . Lejarde
Rad a, 31 9 F .3d12 88 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m it pl ai n e rro r in fin di ng Mo rri s’s co nv ic ti on forba tt ery on a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer co ns ti tu te d acri m e o f vi ol en ce fo r pu rp os es of U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1
. B. Obs truc tio n o f a L aw Enfo rcement Of fic er The Geor gi a fel on y

off en se for ob stru ct in g o r hi nd eri ng a la w enf or cem en t of fic er i s d efi ne d i n p ert in en t p artas f ol lo ws: “ Who ev er kno win gl y an d wi ll fu ll y res is ts , ob st ru ct s, o r op po se s an y law en fo rcem en t o ffi cer . . . inth e la wfu l di sc ha rg e o f hi s o ffi ci al du ti es by offer in g o r do in g v io le nc e to th e p ers on of s uc h of fic er . . . is gu il ty of a fel on y .” O.C.G.A. § 16 -1 0- 24 (b ). The C ou rt o f App eal s 8 Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 8 of 13of

Geor gi a h as co nf

irmed th at“ of

feri ng to do vi ol en ce” o r “ do in g v io le nc e to th e pe rs on of s uc h o ffi cer” is anele m en t o f th e o ffen se , andth e st atut e im pl ie s

“ fo rci bl e res is ta nc e.” Fai rwel l v . Geor gi a, 71 7 S .E.2d33 2, 3 38 (Ga. Ct . App
. 20 11 ). W e rec en tl y

he ldth ata si m il arl y

word edoff

en se forres is ti ng anoff

ic er with v io le nc e, in vi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 8 43 .01 , con st itut eda vi ol en t fe lo ny for pu rp os es of t he ACCA. See Un it edSta te s v . Nix , 62 8 F .3d13 41 , 13 41 -4 2 (1 1t h 6 Ci r. 20 10 ). In Ni x, we ex pr es sl y ad op te d t he rat io na le setforth inou r unpubl is he d op in io n i n Un it edSta te s v . Hay es , 40 9 F ed . App ’x 27 7, 2 78 -7 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0)
. 62 8 F .3dat 1 34 2. Si gn ifi can tl y , inHay es , we con cl ud edth ata vi ol at io n o f § 8 43 .01 “ fal ls squarel y

withi n ACC A’ s re si du al claus e.” 40 9 F ed . App ’x at 2 78
- 7 79 . W e rea so ne d t ha t co m m on sen se di ct at es th atth e actof r es is ti ng arre st“po se s a th reatof d ire ctco nf

ro nt at io n b etweena po li ce o ffi cer a ndth e subjec t o f th e arre st , creat in g t he po te nt ia l fo r se rio us ph y si cal in jury to the off

ic er an d o th ers .” Id . at 2 79 (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . W ardric k, 3 50 F.3d44 6, 4 55 (4t h C ir. 2 00 3) ).

That F lorida statute provide s: “Whoever knowing ly and willfully

resists, 6 obstructs, or opposes a

ny office r . . . in the lawf

ul execution of any

leg al duty , by

offe ringor doing violenc e to the per son of such off icer . . . is guilty

of a f elony . . . .” F la. Stat. § 843.01. The Ha yes pane l did not reac h the question of whe ther the F lorida off ense w ould 7 additionally

qualify as a violent fe lony

under the “use of

forc e” c lause, be cause it was “satisfied that it falls well within the residual cla use.” 409 F ed. App’ x at 278. 9 Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 9 of 13Not in g t ha t the st atut e’s pl ai n l an gu ag e m ad e cl ear t ha t the off en se of r es is ti ng arre stwith v io le nc e is “pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve ,” we ha d “ no di ffi cu lt y co nc lu di ng th aton e who co m m it s t he cri m e o f res is ti ng arre stby kno win gl y an d wil lfu ll y off eri ng or d oi ng vi ol en ce t o a n arres ti ng off ic er h as co m

m it te d a‘ vi ol en t fel on y ’ fo r pu rp os es of AC CA.” Id
. Nix can no t b e d is ti ng ui sh edon th e b as is of the st atut ory lan gu ag e an al y zed , as th e te xtof t he Flo rid a st atut e atis su e th ere was ne arl y id en ti cal to th atof t he Geo rg iast atut e in th e in st an t ca se . Bot h p ro vi si on s re qu ire th ata de fen da nt

“ kn owi ng ly andwil lfu ll y res is t[], ob st ru ct [], orop po se []” an o ffi cer “ by offer in g ordo in g v io le nc e to th e p ers on of s uc h o ffi cer.” O.C.G.A. § 1 6- 10 -2 4( b) ; Fl a. St at . § 8 43 .01 . Alth ou gh we ne edno t ru le de fin it iv el y , pu rs ua ntto Nix , Mo rri s’s ob st ru ct io n o f anoff

ic er co nv ic ti on wou ldli ke ly qua li fy as acri m e o f vi ol en ce un de r § 4 B1 .2(b )’s res idua l cl au se . Equ al ly im po rta nt , Mo rri s ci te s n o b in di ng 8
We rejec t Morris’s position that Nix improperly relied only

on common sense, 8 and not statistical data, to dete rmine whe ther the of fense posed a risk of injury . See United States v. Chitwood, 676 F.3d 971, 981 (11th Cir. 2012) (e xplaining tha t, even though “the Supreme Court and this Court have r elied on statistics when de terminingwhether offe nses ar e crimes of violence . . . w e have never held that statistical evidenc e is requir ed,” a nd “whe n, as here , we a

re w ithout the benefit of e mpirical evide nce, w e re ly on our own c ommon-sense analy sis of whether

[the] conduct poses a

serious potential risk of phy sical injury”) ( quotations omitted). Morris’s argument that Nix was other wise wrong ly

decide d does not war

rant e x tended discussion. Under the prior pane l prec edent r ule, we a re bound by

Nix “unless and until it is overr uled by this court en banc or by

the Supreme Court.” United States v. Br own, 342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003). Fina lly , even a ssuming Nix is not technica lly binding with re spect to the instant analy sis, Morris would stil l be unable to de monstrate plain er ror. 10 Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 10 of 13pr eced en t t o t he co nt rary. See Lejar de -Rad a, 31 9 F .3dat 1 29 1. W e d is cern no 9 pl ai n e rro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s d es ig na ti on of t he ob st ru ct io n o f a l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer c on vi ct io n a s a c rime of v io le nc e. Insu m , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err when itcla ss ifi edth e b atte ry of a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer c on vi ct io n a ndth e o bs tru ct io n c on vi ct io n a s cr im es of vi ol en ce fo r Mo rri s’s ca reer -o ffen de r en ha nc em en t. No r di d t he di st ric t co urt co m m itpl ai n e rro r by fail in g t o s pe ci fy un de r whi ch claus e o f § 4 B1 .2(a ) Mo rri s’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s qua li fie d a s cr im es of v io le nc e o r by fail in g t o p erfo rm a m od ifi edcat eg or ic al an al y si s. Ev enass um in g the re was erro r th atwas p la in , Mo rri s ca nn otsh ow a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t o ut co m e b ecau se —fo r th e rea so ns setforth ab ov e—b ot h p red ic at e co nv ic ti on s wo ul d l ik el y qu al ify as cri m es of v io le nc e und er atlea ston e o f th e cl au se s o f § 4 B1 .2(a ).

II.

It is further possible that the obstruc tion conviction could qualify as a c rime of 9 violence unde r the “ phy sical for ce” clause . We emphasize that the offe nse includes a s an element the use or threa

tened use of violence . See O.C.G.A. § 16- 10-24(b) (re quiringthat an individual resist, obstruct, or oppose a n office r “by

offe ringor doingviolence to the pe rson of such off icer ”); Stry

ker v. State, 677 S.E.2d 680, 682 (G a. Ct. App. 2009) (statingthat misdemeanor obstruc tion “no longe r conta ins the element of violenc e as doe s the offe nse of felony obstruction”) ( quotations omit ted). Nota bly , the par

ties have not c ited, and our r esea rch has not reve aled, bindingauthority on the issue of whe ther this element mee ts the standard se t forth in J ohnson, requiringthe use or thr eate ned use of “violent forc e . . . ca

pable of causing phy sical pain or injury .” See 130 S. Ct. at 1271. 11 Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 11 of 13Mo rri s al so arg ue s t ha t h is 21 0- m on th sen te nc e o f im pr is on m en t, i m

po se d atth e lo w endof t he care er-o ffen de r-ad jus te d app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge , was subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . He po si ts th atth e co urt d idno t ad equa te ly con si de r ev id en ce re ga rd in g h is tro ub le d c hi ldho odan d t he na tu re o f th e p red ic at e co nv ic ti on s re su lt in g i n h is care er o ffen de r st atus , ren de rin g asen te nc e th atwas gr eat er tha n n eces sa ry

to co m pl y with t he purp os es of 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2)
. W e rev ie w th e fi na l s en te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r reas on ab le ne ss , un de r a d efer en ti al ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gall v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 1 (2 00 7) . “ The party chal le ng in g t he
se nt en ce b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atitwas u nr eas on ab le . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tom e, 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ The rev ie w forsubs ta nt iv e un reas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g anin qu iry int o wh ethe r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The

“ weig htto be acco rd edan y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fa ct oris a m at te r co m m it te d t o t he
so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt.” Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 5 26 F.3d13 12 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Alth ou gh we do no t au to m at ic al ly pr es um e a s en te nc e fal li ng withi n t he gu id el in e ran ge to be reas on ab le , we or di na ril y ex pe ctsu ch a se nt en ce t o b e rea so nabl e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 5 26 12 Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 12 of 13F.3 d 7 39 , 74 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . W e wil l n otrev ers e u nl es s we are “ le ft wi th th e

de fin it e an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (quo ta ti on s om it te d)
. W e h ol d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t i m po se a subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le
se nt en ce. Whi le th e m it ig at in g fa ct or s p res en te d b y Mo rri s m ay

ha ve all owe d 1 0 th e d is tri ctco urt t o v ary do wnwar d fr om th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , no th in g requi reditto do so he re. Mo rri s h as fai le d t o s ho w th atth e se nt en ce i m po se d, at th e lo w endof t he care er-o ffen de r-en ha nc edgu id el in e ran ge , was o ut si de th e reas on ab le ran ge of s en te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e. AFFIR MED. 1 1

Morris cha

rac terizes his positi on on appea l as a substantive, a s opposed to a 1 0 proce dural, c halleng e to the re asonable ness of his sentenc e. Ne verthe less, he sug g ests—in passing—that the re cord r evea ls that the district court ignored c erta in miti g atingarguments and § 3553(a) fac tors. “[W ]e cannot say that the cour

t’s failure to discuss this m itigatingevidenc e means that the c ourt err oneously ignor ed or f

ailed to consider

this evidence in determining [Morris’s] sentenc e.” United Statse v. Amedeo, 487 F .3d 832, 833 (11th Cir. 2007). The district judge was not re quired to discuss or e x plicitly state on the re cord e ach § 3553( a) f actor . United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005).

Morris’s re quest for or al ar gument is DENI ED. 1 1 13 Case: 11-13064 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 13 of 13