FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 22, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 10500 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 4 5 - C R - F T M- 3 3 - DN F 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 O N A L D R A Y H O RN E , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 22, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:This s e c tio n ma ke s it unlawf ul f or c ertain indivi du als to “to s hipor transpo rt in 1 interstate or

fore ign c ommerce , or possess in or af fec ting c ommerce , any

firea rm or ammunition; or to rec eive a

ny firea rm or ammunition which has be en shipped or transported in inter state or fore ign c ommerce .” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). 2 D ona l d R a y H orne appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd 15- y e a rs e nt e nc e f or pos s e s s i on of

a m m uni t i on by a c onvi c t e d f e l on, pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) a nd 924( e ) . O n appe a l , H orne c ha l l e nge s the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of § 922( g) a nd a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by appl y i ng the 15- y e a rm a nda t ory m i ni m um s e n t e n c e u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ( e ) . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. H o rn e , a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n , w a s f

o u n d in p o s s e s s io n to tw o liv e s h o tg u n s h e lls . H e pl ed gu i l ty t o p osse ss i on of am m un i t i on by a c on vi ct ed fe l on and, at s e n te n c in g , m a d e n o o b

je c tio n to th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e r ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t, be c a us e he w a s s ubj e c tt o a m a nda t ory 15- y e a rm i ni m um t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) , hi s appl i c abl e G ui de l i ne r a nge w a s 180- 210 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . H orne w a s s e nt e nc e d t o the m a nda t orym i ni m um t e rm of 1 5 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. F orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , H orne , s t a t i ng tha the r a i s e s the i s s ue onl y f or p u rp o s e s o f

p r e s e r v a tio n , a r g u e s th a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) is u n c o n s titu tio n a l o n its 1 f a c e b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t e x p lic itly r e q u ir e as u b s ta n tia l e f f e c t o n in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e a n d is u n c o n s titu tio n a l a s ap p lie d b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o s u c h e v id e n c e in th is c a s e . A s H o rn e c o rr e c tly r e c o g n iz e s , w e h a v e p r e v io u s ly r e je c te d th isThis s e c tio n p ro vide s in pertinent p art : 2 In the ca se of a

person who violate s section 922(g) of this title and has thre e previous convic tions by

any court re fer

red to in sec tion 922(g )(1) of this titl e for a violent felony

or a serious drugoffense, or both, committed on occ asions different from oneanother , such per son shall be . . . imprisoned not less than fifteen year s . . . . 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) . 3 c h a lle n g e a n d h e ld th a t a“m in im a l n e x u s ” to in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e is s u f f ic ie n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 2 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 3 - 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . H o rn e n e x t a r g u e s th a t th e in d ic tm e n t s u f f e r e d f r o m a ju r is d ic tio n a l d e f e c t, re sul t i ng i n the erroneou s app l i ca t i on of the 15 -y ea r m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence unde r§ 924( e ) . T he pr e m i s e of H orne ’ s a r gum e nti s tha t , by s pe c i f y i ng 12 pr i or 2 conv i ct i on s i n the i nd i ctm ent , the 3 p re di ca t e c on vi ct i on s nee ded t o tri gg er § 924( e ) c oul d onl y c om e f r om thos e 12 c onvi c t i ons . H orne c onc e de s tha ttw o of thos e c onvi c t i ons m e e tthe c r i t e r i a i n § 924( e ) . H ow e ve r , he a r gue s tha tthe rem ai n i n g t en p ri o r fel o n i es, o n th ei r face, did n o tm eetth e § 9 2 4 (e) crit eri a. A s a re sul t , he cont ends, there w as a j uri sdi ct i on al error because the three re qu i re d qu al i fy i ng conv i ct i on s w er e notpres enton the fa ce of the i nd i ctm ent . H e f urther a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe F l or i da bur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons a l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntqua l i f i e d a s pr e di c a t e c onvi c t i ons b a s e d o n th e c o n d u c t s u rr o u n d in g th o s e c o n v ic tio n s . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o w h e th e ra n in d ic tm e n t s u f f ic ie n tly c h a r g e s a s ta tu to r ily4

p r o s c r ib e d o f

f e n s e . U n ite d S ta te s v . P e a s e , 2 4 0 F .3 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . B e c a us e H orne r a i s e d thi s a r gum e ntf orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , “ the i ndi c tm e nt m u s t b e h e ld s u f

f ic ie n t u n le s s it is s o d e f e c tiv e th a t it d o e s n o t, b y a n y r e a s o n ab le construct i on , char ge the offens e t o w hi ch [the defendant ] pl ea ded g ui l ty. ” I d. at 94 3. A n i nd i ctm entsuff er s f rom a j uri sdi ct i on al defe ctw hen i tchar ges no cri m e a t al l , i . e. , a non -off

ense . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P et er , 31 0 F . 3d 70 9, 71 4-15 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) . A d e f

e n d a n t’s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry p le a o f g u ilty , h o w e v e r , w a iv e s a ll non- j ur i s di c t i ona l de f

e c t s i n the pr oc e e di ngs . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Y uni s , 723 F . 2d 7 9 5 , 7 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . H o rn e d o e s n o t d is p u te th a t h e w a s a f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a m m u n itio n , in v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). H i s ch al l en g e t o § 9 2 4 (e) fail s b ecau se § 9 24 (e ) i s ase nt ence enhancem entprov i si on , no ta s epar at e off ense . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M c G a tha , 891 F . 2d 1520, 1527 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . A c c or di ngl y , the pr i or c onvi c t i ons ne e d notbe a l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nta nd a r e r e l e va ntonl y f or s e nt e nc i ng. I d. A ny de f e c ti n the m a nne ri n w hi c h the i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d a vi ol at i on of § 9 24 (e ), there fore , i s of no rel evance t o w hether the i nd i ctm entfa i l ed to c h a r g e th e o f

f e n s e to w h ic h H o rn e p le d g u ilty . H o rn e c a n n o t c h a lle n g e h is c onvi c t i on on the gr ound the r e w a s a n i ns uf f i c i e ntf a c tua l ba s i s t o s uppor tthe ap p lic a tio n o f

§ 9 2 4 ( e ) , a s a c la im th a t “th e r e w a s a n in s u f f ic ie n t f a c tu a l b a s is toHorneasks us to remand thecaseto allow the district court to makea spec ific findingas 3 to Horne’ s third qualifying of fense , if any . The pa

rties cha rac terize this issue as a question of whether or not we should af

firm on alter

nate grounds. B eca

use Hornehas not otherwiseshown error by the district court, there is no nee d to affir m on alternate grounds. In any event, we would not remand f

or a f inding a s to whether H orne’ s March 19, 2004 conviction for thesale or delivery of coc aine is a qualifying “ serious drugoffense” under § 924(e ). Under F lorida law, the sale or de livery

of coc aine is a se cond degreefelony, punishable by a maximumterm of 15 year s’ imprisonment, Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)( a)( 1) (referenc ing §§ 775.082( 3)(c ), 893.03(2)( a)(4)), a

nd, there fore , it is a qualifying of fense . 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2) (A)( ii). 5 s uppor tthe i ndi c tm e nt ” i s a non- j ur i s di c t i ona l de f

e c t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F a i r c hi l d, 8 0 3 F .2 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . T o th e e x te n t th a t H o rn e c h a lle n g e s th e ap p lic a tio n o f § 9 2 4 ( e ) to h is s e nt e nc e , be c a us e i ti s r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , w e r e vi e w hi s c l a i m “ f or pl ai n err or, or error thati s c l ea r or obv i ou s a nd af fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . R ic h a r d s o n , 1 6 6 F .3 d 1 3 6 0 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . W e h a v e r e p e a te d ly re j ec t ed the ar gu m entthatpri or conv i ct i on s m ustbe charged i n the i nd i ctm entfor a de f e nda ntt o be s e nt e nc e d a s a n a rm e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l . E . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W a de , 458 F . 3d 1273, 1278 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow d, 451 F . 3d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , p e t. f o rc e r t. f ile d ( A u g . 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( N o . 0 6 - 6 1 6 4 ) . F urtherm ore, se nt enci ng un der § 92 4(e) i s m andat ory a nd m ustbe appl i ed a ut om a t i c a l l y r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rthe gove rnm e nta f f i rm a t i ve l y s e e ks the e n h a n c e m e n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . C o b ia , 4 1 F .3 d 1 4 7 3 , 1 4 7 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . A cc ordi ng l y, any e rr or by the di stri ctcourti n rel yi ng on conv i ct i on s other than th o se ch arg ed i n th e i n d i ctm en tcan n o tb e sai d t o b e cl ear o r o b v i o u s. 36

In l i gh tof the foregoi ng , H orne’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e AF F I RME D.