FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 15, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 79 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :1 0- cr-8 00 63 -KAM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us KELSEY JAMES MC QUEEN, a.k .a. Cal se y

James McQu een , Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 15 , 20 12 )

Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARC US an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e:App el la ntKels ey James McQu eenpl ead edgu il ty to thr ee co un ts of at te m pt edali ensm

ug gl in g i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a)(2 )(B) (ii ), an d o ne co un t o f fai li ng to ob ey

anord er b y

fed eral law en fo rcem en t t o h eav e to th ei r ve ss el invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 23 7( a)(1 ). At s en te nc in g, o ve r McQu een ’s ob jecti on , th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d a n e nh an cem en t p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.1 (b )(5 )(A) be cau se a fi rearm was d is ch arg edby law en fo rcem en t. 1 McQu eenap pe al s h is sen te nc e, co nt en di ng th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d p ro cedur al erro r by inc orrect ly calcu la ti ng th e advi so ry Gui de li ne s rang e. W e aff irm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The fact s ar e und is pu te d. OnApri l 2 8, 2 01 0, at11 p.m ., a U.S. Cus to m s an d B or de r Pro te ct io n (C BP) p atro l ai rcra ft s po tt eda bo athe ad edwestto ward s Pal m Beac h C ou nt y , Flo rid a. The b oa t m at ch edth e d es cri pt io n o f th e Ma ry Carl a, a 3 3- fo otve ss el su sp ect edof s m ug gl in g a li en s o r na rco ti cs in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. CBP p atro l b oa ts in te rd ic te d t he Mary Carlaap pr ox im at el y 11 .8 n au ti cal m il es of fs ho re, act iv at edth ei r bl ue li gh ts , si ren s, an d s po tl ig ht s, an d c omm an de d t he Mary Carl a to st op . McQu een , th e o pe rat or of the Mary Carla , att em pt edto fle e, tu rn in g t he ve ss el eas t an d a way fro m lan d. CB P o ffi cers pu rs ue d M cQu eenfor

All refe renc es to the Sentenc ing Guidelines are to the Guidelines ef fec tive November

1, 1 2009. 2th ree m in ut es . Becau se McQu eenco nt in ue d t o fl ee, o ffi cers fir edtwo il lu m in at ed

warn in g s ho ts . The warn in g s ho ts were fo ll owe d c lo se ly by th e laun ch in g o f fo ur

“pe pp er b al ls ” in to th e Ma ry Carl a’s cab in . Three m or e m in ut es pa ss ed , and McQu eenco nt in ue d t o fl ee. CBP off ic ers ag ai n fi redtwo m or e warn in g s ho ts in th e d ire ct io n o f th e Mary Carl a. McQu eenst il l d idno t co m pl y , for ci ng th e of fic ers to bo ardth e Ma ry

Carl a whi le itwas m ov in g. A se arch of t he Mary Carla di sc ov ered14 ali en s o n b oard , no ne of wh om ha d p erm is si on to en te r th e Uni te d St at es . II. STANDARD OF REVIEW McQu een all eg es th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d p ro cedur al erro r by im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng hi s ad vi so ry

Gui de li ne s ra ng e. W e rev ie w th e reas on ab le ne ss of s en te nc in g p ro cedur es un de r anab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Uni te d Sta tes v. El liso r , 52 2 F .3d12 55 , 12 73 n.2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . A cou rt t ha t m is in te rp ret s o r m is ap pl ie s the Gui de li ne s i nh eren tl y ab us es it s d is cret io n. The refo re, we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs for cle ar erro r, an d i ts in te rp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s d e n ov o. Uni te d Sta tes v. Do e , 66 1 F .3d55 0, 5 65 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ); Ell is or , 52 2 F .3dat 1 27 3 n .25 ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Ca mpb el l , 49 1 F .3d13 06 , 13 15 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).

3III. DISC USSION

The Gui de li ne ap pl ic ab le to ali ensm ug gl in g i s U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .1. Subs ect io n 2 L1.1 (b )(5 )(A) re qu ire s an en ha nc em en t i f “ a fi rearm was di sc ha rg ed .” The Gu id el in es li m itap pl ic at io n o f th e en ha nc em en t t o fi rearm

2 di sc ha rg es “ co m

m it te d, ai de d, ab et te d, co un se le d, co m m an de d, i nduc ed , pro cu red , orwil lfu ll y

cau se d b y

th e d efen da nt .” U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .3(a )(1 )(A). W e m us t de ci de whet he r McQu een “ in du ced ” th e d is ch arg e o f a fi rearm . In Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , th is Co urt af firm edth e ap pl ic at io n o f th e en ha nc em en t i n t he rob be ry co nt ex t b y

co nc lu di ng th atdi sc harg es were “ in du ced ” by the de fen da nt ’s con du ct . 51 F.3d10 04 , 10 11 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ), ab ro ga te d o n othe r gro un ds byJo nes v. Un it ed Stat es , 52 6 U.S. 2 27 , 11 9 S . Ct. 1 21 5 (1 99 9) . W il li am s at te m

pt eda carjac ki ng by app ro ach in g atru ckan d p oi nt in g h is gu n in si de . In re sp on se , an o ccupa ntof t he tru cksh otat Wil li am s. Ci ti ng § 1 B1 .3(a )(1 )(A), thi s C ou rt h el d t ha t Will ia m s i nduc edth e o ccupa ntto fir e b y ap pr oa ch in g t he tru ck

with h is weap on dra wn, m ak in g t he oc cupa nt ’s di sc ha rg e at tri bu tabl e to W il li am s. Id
. 3 A “f irea rm” is def

ined as “ any

wea pon . . . which will . . . expel a projec tile by the 2 action of a

n explos ive.” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 cmt. n.1(G). T he par ties agree a fire arm discha rg ed the illuminated warningshots. In W illiams , we pr ovided two rationales to support our application of the discharg e 3 enhanc ement. B oth are binding holding s. See, e .g. , Bravo v. U nited States , 532 F.3d 1154, 4W e d idno t d efi ne “ in du ced ” in W il li ams . Becau se th e Gui de li ne s al so do no t d efi ne “ in du ced ,” we m us t g iv e th e te rm

it s o rd in ary m ean in g. Uni te d Sta tes v. Dig io rg io , 19 3 F .3d11 75 , 11 78 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). To “ in du ce” m ean s “ [t]o l ead (a p ers on ), by pers ua si on or s om e in flu en ce o r m ot iv e th atact s upo n t he wil l, t o . . . so m e act io n, co nd it io n, b el ie f, et c.” o r “ [t]o b rin g abo ut , bri ng on , pro du ce, cau se , gi ve ris e to .” Th e Oxf or d En gl is h Di ct io na ry88 7- 88 (2ded . 19 89 ); se e al so Th e Am. Heri ta ge Dict io na ryof th e Eng lish La ng uage 87 1 (Ne w Col le ge Ed. 19 81 ) (d efi ni ng “ in du ce” a s “ [t]o l eador m ov e b y in flu en ce o r pe rs ua si on ; t o pr ev ai l upo n,” or “ [t]o s ti m ul at e th e o ccurren ce o f; c au se ”); W eb st er ’s Th ird N

ew In t’l Dict io na ry 11 54 (3ded . 19 76 ) (d efi ni ng “ in du ce” a s “ to m ov e an d l ead(as by pe rs ua si on or i nf

lu en ce)” or “ to in sp ire , cal l fo rth , or b rin g abo utby infl ue nc e o r st im ul at io n” or “ to bri ng on or b rin g abo ut: EFFECT, CAUSE”) . Howev er, we m us t ap pl y th e o rd in ary m ean in g m os t co ns is te ntwith o ur de ci si on in W

il li ams . W il li am s d idno t p ers ua de or p rev ai l upo n h is vi ct im to di sc harg e a weap on , or cal l fo rth th e d is ch arg e. In st ead , W il li am s b ro ug htab ou t, p ro du ced , or c au se d h is vi ct im to di sc ha rg e a fi rearm

by app ro ach in g t he tru ckwith adra wn fi rearm . Giv enou r us e o f “ in du ced ” in W il li ams , we m

us t at tri bu te to a de fen da ntth e act s

1162-63 (11th Cir. 2008). 5orom is si on s o f an ot he r th atare b ro ug htab ou t, p ro du ced , or c au se d b y th e de fen da nt ’s con du ct . Neit he r pa rty dis pu te s tha t we m us t fo ll ow W

il li ams . Ins te ad , McQu een

4 cl ai m s tha t h is act io ns di d n otactua ll y in du ce the di sc ha rg es . McQu eenco nt en ds th e o ffi cers ’ di sc ha rg es were h as ty, reck le ss , andun ne ces sa ry , andth atno on e, in cl ud in g M cQu een , wou ldco ns id er fi rin g o n t he Mary Carlato be ap pr op ria te . The ess en ce o f McQu een ’s arg um en t i s tha t b ecau se itwas n otreas on ab ly fo res eeab le th athi s ac ti on s wo ul d re su ltinlaw en fo rcem en t d is ch arg in g afir earm , he di d n otin du ce the di sc ha rg e. The Go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th e d is ch arg es were a reas on ab le res po ns e to McQu een ’s con du ct , andare the refo re at tri bu tabl e to McQu een . Thu s, the pa rti es ag ree t ha t the is su e inth is cas e is whet he r la w en fo rcem en t’s d is ch arg e o f il lu m in at edwarn in g s ho ts was areas on ab ly fo res eeab le res ul t o f McQu een ’s con du ct ; tha t i s, wh ethe r McQu eenleg al ly cau se d t he di sc ha rg es .

McQue en did not cite any authority contra dicting the holding of W illiams . Howeve r, we 4 are awa re othe r cour

ts of appea ls have disagree d. See, e .g. , United States v. Hill , 381 F.3d 560, 562-63 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Gordon , 64 F.3d 281, 283- 84 (7th Cir. 1995). But see United States v. Robe rts , 203 F.3d 867, 870 ( 5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Molina , 106 F.3d 1118, 1122-23 (2d Cir. 1997). We a re bound to follow W

illiams . See Cargill

v. Turpin , 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 ( 11th Cir. 1997) (“The law of this circ uit is ‘emphatic’ that only the Supreme Court or this court sitting en ba nc ca n judicially

overr ule a prior pane l decision.” (c itation omitted)). 6McQu een att em pt edto sm

ug gl e 1 4 a li en s i nt o the Uni te d S ta te s u si ng a 33 - fo otbo atinth e d eadof n ig ht . CBP p atro l b oa ts an d a irc raftin te rd ic te d h is bo at twel ve naut ic al mil es fro m sh or e. CBP o ffi cers act iv at edth ei r pa tro l b oa ts ’ bl ue li gh ts , si ren s, an d s po tl ig ht s. In st eadof s to pp in g, M cQu eentu rn edhi s v es se l away fro m

lan d a ndfle d. CB P p atro l b oa ts pu rs ue d M cQu eenforth ree m in ut es , rep eat ed ly ord eri ng hi m

to st op hi s v es se l. Whenhe di d n otst op , CBP o ffi cers fir edtwo il lu m in at edwarn in g s ho ts . The d is ch arg es were n otacci de nt al . Rath er, th ey were m eas ur edres po ns es to McQu een ’s con ti nu edcri m in al co nduc t. As i n W il li ams , McQu een ’s act io ns in du ced , i.e. b ro ug htab ou t, p ro du ced , or c au se d, the di sc ha rg e o f a fi rearm . Con tra ry to McQu een ’s ass ert io ns , a “ reas on ab le ” al ie n sm ug gl er wh o fl ees fro m

law en fo rcem en t o n t he hi gh sea s wo ul d fo res ee the us e of il lu m in at edwarn in g s ho ts to ga in co m pl ia nc e. IV. CONCLUSION Ourde no vo rev ie w of t he ev id en ce l ead s u s t o c on cl ud e Mc Que en ’s act io ns in du cedlaw en fo rcem en t t o d is ch arg e th ei r fi rearm s b ecau se law en fo rcem en t’s res po ns e was a reas on ab ly fores eeab le res ul t o f McQu een ’s con du ct . W e aff irm McQu een ’s 84 -m on th sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

7