FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 20, 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- 15 35 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 03 13 -RAL-EAJ- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us HECTOR MANUEL ROMO-VILLALOBOS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 20 , 20 12 )

Befo re MAR CUS, COX an d S ILER, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM:
Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, J r., United States Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sitting by * designation.Hect orRo m o- Vil la lo bo s ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d 3 7- m on th to ta l

se nt en ce fo r il le ga l re en try after a fel on y , pu rs ua ntto 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) a nd (b )(1 ), an d fo r il le ga l re en try afterco nv ic ti on of f al se rep res en ta ti on , pu rs ua ntto 8 U.S.C. §§ 13 25 (a)( 1) an d 1 32 9. Onap pe al , he a rg ue s t ha t: (1) he sh ou ldno t h av e rece iv eda 16 -le ve l s en te nc in g e nh an cem en t b as edon hi s Fl or id a co nv ic ti on for
res is ti ng anoff

ic er wi th vi ol en ce, b ecau se Flo rid a’s st atut e d oe s n otco ns ti tu te a cri m e o f vi ol en ce; an d (2 ) hi s 3 7- m on th sen te nc e was un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co urt fa il edto gra nthi m a va ria nc e b as edonsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s caus ed by the Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a’s la ckof afas t-t rackpro gr am . After c aref ul
rev ie w, we affi rm . W e rev ie w de n ov o wh ethe r a d efen da nt ’s pri or co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s. Un it edSta te s v . Pal om in o Garci a, 60 6 F .3d13 17 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce a d is tri ct
co urt i m po se s fo r “ reas on ab le ne ss ,” whi ch “ m erel y ask s wh ethe r th e tr ia l co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 89 (11 th Cir
. 20 08 ) (quo ti ng Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 51 (20 07 )). The rel ev an t fa ct s an d p ro cedur al hi st ory are t he se . A gran d ju ry

in di ct ed Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s o n two co un ts , cha rg in g h im with: (1) il le ga l re en try after

2co nv ic ti on of afel on y ; an d (2 ) il le ga l re en try afterco nv ic ti on of f al se rep res en ta ti on . He pl edgu il ty to b ot h c ou nt s wi th ou t a p le a ag reem en t. Pri orto th is in di ct m en t, Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof M ex ic o, ha d b een rem ov edfro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s t wice be fo re an d h adil le ga ll y reen te red aft er ea ch de po rta ti on . He was d ep orte d t he fir stti m e aft er b ei ng co nv ic te d fo r fal se rep res en ta ti on . He was d ep orte d t he sec on d t im e aft er b ei ng co nv ic te d i n Fl or id a fo r res is ti ng anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce, und er Fl or id a St atut e § 84 3.0 1. Insen te nc in g R om o- Vil la lo bo s fo r th e in st an t i ll eg al reen try offe ns es , th e di st ric t co urt i m

po se d a16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A)(i i) fo r ha vi ng be enpre vi ou sl y de po rte d a fte r a co nv ic ti on for a fel on y cri m e o f vi ol en ce, rel y in g o n the Flo rid a co nv ic ti on . The d is tri ctco urt t he n i m po se d a 3- le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y , y ie ld in g ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 21 . Rom o- Vil la lo bo s h adon e cri m in al hi st ory po in t, wh ic h e st ab li sh eda cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I . Bas edonhi s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I an d t he ad

jus te d of fen se lev el of 2 1, h is res ul ti ng gu id el in e ran ge was 3 7- 46 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Th e co urt s en te nc edRo m o- Vil la lo bo s t o 3 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t
as to co un t o ne an d 2 4 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t as to co un t t wo, the term s t o ru n co nc urren tl y . In ex pl ai ni ng th e se nt en ce, the co urt s ai d t ha t i t h adco ns id eredall th e st atut ory

fact or s, es pe ci al ly det erre nc e an d p ro te ct io n o f th e p ub li c. It
3co nc lu de d t ha t, af te r co ns id eri ng th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es an d a ll of t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, the sen te nc e itim po se d was m or e th anreas on ab le an d was
su ffi ci en t b utno t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry to co m pl y with t he st atut ory

pu rp os es of
se nt en ci ng . This ti m el y

ap pe al fol lo ws. Fi rs t, we d is ag ree wi th Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s’s ar gu m en t t ha t the di stric t co urt
erre d i n i m

po si ng a 16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r a p rio r co nv ic ti on of acri m e o f vi ol en ce. Und er U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A)(i i), ade fen da ntrece iv es a 16 -le ve l
en ha nc em en t i f hi s co nv ic ti on ha s an y cri m in al hi st ory

po in ts an d i f he was pr ev io us ly “ de po rte d, o r un lawfu ll y rem ai ne d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s, af te r . . . a co nv ic ti on fora fel on y

th atis
. . . a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.” In pe rti ne ntpa rt, a“ cri m e of vi ol en ce” u nd er thi s g ui de li ne m ean s an y “ of fen se un de r fed eral , st at e, orlo cal la w th atha s as anele m en t the us e, at te m pt edus e, orth reat en edus e o f ph y si cal fo rce a ga in stth e p ers on of a no th er.” U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 cmt. n .1(B )(i ii ) (the

“ el em en ts claus e”). To de te rm in e whe th er a p rio r co nv ic ti on is a qu al ifyin g of fen se forsen te nc in g e nh an cem en t p ur po se s, we ty

pi cal ly app ly a categ or ic al ap pr oa ch . Palo m in o Gar ci a, 60 6 F .3dat 1 32 8. Th atis , we lo okon ly at th e fac t o f
co nv ic ti on an d t he st atut ory de fin it io n o f th e p rio r of fen se . Id. at13 36
. The ele m en ts claus e atis su e h ere i s t he same as th e el em en ts claus es of t he Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act o f 19 84 (“ ACCA”) an d t he care er-o ffen de r gu id el in es . 4Sp eci fic al ly, th e ACCA p ro vi de s a 1 5- y ear m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e fo r an y co nv ic te d fe lo n wh o p os se ss es a fi rearm or a m m un it io n a fte r ha vi ng be en co nv ic te d o f th ree v io le ntfel on ie s o r se rio us dru g o ffen se s, 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ),
an d d efi ne s “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” as “ an y cri m e p un is habl e b y

im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm ex ceed in g o ne y ear . . . th at. . . ha s as anele m en t t he us e, at te m pt edus e, or th reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t t he pe rs on of a no th er,” i d. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i) . Sim il arl y , th e car eer- of fen de r gu id el in es pro vi de foranen ha nc ed
se nt en ce fo r an y

co nv ic te d fe lo n wi th th ree c on vi ct io ns forcri m es of v io le nc e o r co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se s, U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(a )-(b ), an d d efi ne “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” a s “ an y

off en se un de r fed eral or s ta te law, p un is habl e b y im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm ex ceed in g o ne y ear, t ha t . . . has as an e le m en t t he us e, at te m pt edus e, or th reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t t he pe rs on of a no th er,” U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2 (a)( 1) . Con se qu en tl y , cas es de al in g wi th th e el em en ts claus es of t he ACCA
an d t he care er o ffen de r gu id el in es are i ns tru ct iv e in th is cas e. Cf. Uni te d S ta te s v . Loc kl ey , 63 2 F .3d12 38 , 12 41 (11 thCir . 20 11 ). InJo hn so n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 26 5 (2 01 0) , th e Supr em e Co urt
rece nt ly ins tru ct edth atth e type o f “ph y si cal for ce” r equi redun de r th e ACCA’s el em en ts claus e is “ vi ol en t fo rce - - th atis , for ce capabl e o f cau si ng ph y si cal pa in
orin jury to an ot he r pe rs on .” Id . at 1 27 1 (h ol di ng th atsi m pl e b at te ry

-- th e actua l
5an d i nt en ti on al to uc hi ng of a no th er -- d oe s n otco ns ti tu te a pr ed ic at e o ffen se

be cau se th e ACCA re qu ire s “ vi ol en t fo rce,” no t m erel y off en si ve co nt act ). It fu rth er h el d t ha t wh il e th e m ean in g o f “ph y si cal for ce” i s a que st io n o f fed eral law,
no t s ta te law, a fe de ral co urt i s b ou ndby the st at e supr em e co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e el em en ts of t he un de rlyin g s ta te st atut e atis su e. Id . at 1 26 9. 1 Fl or id a St atut e § 84 3.0 1 p ro vi de s i n p ert in en t p art : “ 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 off ic er . . . inth e lawfu l ex ecu ti on of an y leg al du ty, by offer in g o r do in g v io le nc e to th e p ers on of s uc h o ffi cer . . . is gu il ty of a fel on y

of t he th irdde gr ee . . . .” Id. (em ph as is ad de d) . As fo r th e
na tu re o f th e fo rce r equi redto su st ai n aco nv ic ti on un de r § 8 43 .01 , Flo rid a’s ap pe ll at e co urts ha ve he ldth at“ vi ol en ce i s a n eces sary ele m en t o f th e o ffen se .” Rawl in gs v. St at e, 97 6 S o. 2 d 1 17 9, 1 18 1 (F la . 5t h DCA 2 00 8) ; s ee al so W al ke r v. St at e, 96 5 S o. 2 d 1 28 1, 1 28 4 (F la . 2dDCA 20 07 ) (“ One of t he ele m en ts of
res is ti ng arre stwith v io le nc e u nd er s ect io n 8 43 .01 is eithe r of feri ng to do vi ol en ce oractua ll y

do in g i t.”) . Mor eo ve r, Flo rid a’s co urts ha ve he ldth at“ do in g v io le nc e”

When the state supre me cour t has not definitively

deter mined a point of state law , we a re 1 bound to adher e to dec isions of the state’s interme diate cour ts absent some indication that the state supre me cour

t would hold otherwise. Sculptchair , Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623, 627 (11th Cir. 1996). 6in th is co nt ex t “ pl ai nl y in vo lv es th e u se . . . of

ph y si cal for ce o r vi ol en ce.” Harr is v. St at e, 5 S o. 3 d 7 50 , 75 1 (F la . 1s t DCA 2 00 9) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)
. 2 Whi le Jo hn so n p ro sc rib es us fro m rel y in g o n s ta te cas e la w to de te rm in e whe th er a cr im e requi res “ vi ol en t fo rce,” itex pr es sl y di rect s u s t o l oo k t o s ta te
cas es to de te rm in e th e el em en ts of t he st at e o ffen se . 13 0 S . Ct. at12 69 . So, ev en th ou gh Rawl in gs , W al ke r an d Harris an al y zedwhet he r § 8 43 .01 qu al ifi es as a vi ol en t cr im e u nd er the st at e se nt en ci ng sch em e, we are p erm it te d -- in fact , requi red-- to rel y

on th es e sa m e st at e cas es when th ey de sc rib e th e el em en ts of t he cri m e, no m atte r th e co nt ex t. Thu s, b ecau se Flo rid a’s co urts ha ve co nc lu de d t ha t vi ol en ce i s a n eces sa ry

ele m en t o f § 8 43 .01 , we to o c on cl ud e th atitco ns ti tu te s a

“ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” f

or pu rp os es of U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A)(i i). Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s cl ai m s, n ev ert he le ss , th atFlo rid a’s co urts ha ve he ldth at th e el em en t o f vi ol en ce i n § 84 3.0 1 c anbe sat is fie d b y de m in im

us for ce, b utwe are u np ers ua de d. Fo r st art ers , inSta te v. Gree n, 4 00 So . 2d13 22 (Fl a. 5th DCA 19 81 ), th e d efen da ntha d m ov edpre tri al to di sm is s the ch arg e o n t he gro un d t ha t Thus, although J ohnson held that the F lorida crime of fe lony battery , which re quired 2 “proof of only the slighte st unwanted phy sical touch,” could not cate g orica lly be conside red a “violent fe lony” under

the ACCA’s eleme nts clause, 130 S. Ct. at 1269, the Florida crime of resistingan off

icer with violence significantly differ s from the F lorida crime of batter y on a law enfor ceme nt office r. In United States v. Wil liams, 609 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2010), we distinguished the two c rimes, re cognizi ngthat resistingan off icer with violence “ require s proof of conduc t or attempted c onduct involving thre atene d or ac tual phy sical for ce w ith violence.” I d. at 1169 n.1. 7he ha d m erel y “ wig gl edan d s tru gg le d” ag ai ns t o ffi cers att em pt in g t o a rres t h im , fo rci ng th e o ffi cers to pl ace h im in a ch ok eh ol d. Id . at 1 32 3. In rev ers in g t he tri al
co urt’s o rd er o f di sm is sa l, the ap pe ll at e co urt d idno t s ug ge stth atm in im al
un wan te d p hysic al co nt actwou ldbe su ffi ci en t; rathe r, th e co urt em ph as iz edth e

“ am bi gu ity ” o f th e d efen da nt ’s des cri pt io n o f hi s co nduc t an d s ai d t ha t wh ethe r th e d efen da nt ’s act io ns “ co ns ti tu te [d ] ‘vio le nc e’” with inth e m ean in g o f Fl a. St at . § 8 43 .01 was a n i ss ue of f actforth e jury to d eci de . Id. at13 23 -2 4. Inso ho ld in g, itstres se d t ha t i t was co ns tru in g t he ev id en ce i n ali gh t “ m os t fa vo rab le to ” th e st at e, an d t ha t i nf

eren ces were “ res ol ve d a ga in stth e d efen da nt .” Id . at 1 32 4. Giv enth e p os tu re i n wh ic h i t was vi ewin g the cas e, an d i ts rep eat edrefe ren ces to th is po stur e, we can no t co nc lu de , con tra ry to Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s’s cl ai m , th atde
m in im is for ce i s s uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh vi ol en ce i n § 84 3.0 1. Si m il arl y , inWrig htv. St at e, 68 1 S o. 2 d 8 52 (Fl a. 5t h DCA 1 99 6) , an of fic er re pe at ed ly atte m

pt edto arre stth e d efen da nt , bu t t he de fen da nt“pu sh edan d fo ug hthi m

off .” Id . at 8 53 . Ano th er o ffi cer “ ev en tu al ly tack le d” th e d efen da nt
an d “ sa t o n h is ba ck ,” bu t h addi ffi cu lt y ha nd cu ffi ng th e d efen da nt . Id. The of fic er h adto res ort t o “ a ‘ho g- ti e p os it io n,’ com pl et el y cu tt in g o ff the de fen da nt ’s br eat hi ng ” b ecau se he “ was st ru gg li ng , ki ck in g, an d fl ai li ng hi s arm s an d l eg s.” Id . Alth ou gh th e d efen da nt“ de ni ed
. . . hi tt in g, k ic ki ng or r es is ti ng th e o ffi cers 8wit h v io le nc e,” the co urt h el d t ha t “ th e st at e was no t re qu ire d t o p ro ve th at[th e

de fen da nt ] actua ll y

st ru ckeit he r of

fic er,” b ecau se th e ev id en ce was “ su ffi ci en t t o sh ow t ha t h e o ffer edto do vi ol en ce t o t he off ic ers withi n t he m ean in g o f [the st atut e].” Id. at85 3- 54 (em ph as is ad de d) . W

rig ht , th eref

or e, in vo lv eda de fen da nt ’s att em

ptto em pl oy ph y si cal for ce -- by pus hi ng , stru gg li ng , ki ck in g
an d fl ai li ng arm s an d l eg s -- th atun de ni ab ly w ou ldha ve be en“ cap ab le of c au si ng ph y si cal pa in or i nju ry

to an ot he r pe rs on ,” Jo hn so n, 1 30 S. Ct. at12 71
. Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s al so arg ue s t ha t § 84 3.0 1 c an no t i nv ol ve a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” b ecau se iton ly requ ire s a m en s re a o f rec kl es sn es s, wh ic h we h av e h el d

“ do es no t s at is fy

th e ‘use of p hysic al for ce’ requi rem en t u nd er § 2L1 .2’s d efi ni ti on of ‘ cri m e o f vi ol en ce.’” Palo m in o Gar ci a, 60 6 F .3dat 1 33 6. He re li es on th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng in Frey v. Stat e, 70 8 S o. 2 d 9 18 (Fl a. 20 09 ), th at
res is ti ng anoff

ic er wi th vi ol en ce d oe s n otrequi re a s pe ci fic in te ntto co m m itth e of fen se . Id. at92 0. InFrey, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt co ns id ered“ whe th er res is ti ng arre stwith v io le nc e is a ge ne ral in te ntor s pe ci fic in te ntcri m e” i n o rd er to de te rm in e whe th er a d efen da nt ’s reque st edin stru ct io n o n avo lu nt ary in to xi cat io n d efen se sh ou ldha ve be engi ve n. 7 08 So . 2dat 9 19 -2 0. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t “ [t]he st atut e’s pl ai n l an gu ag e rev eal s t ha t n o h ei gh te ne d
orpa rti cu la riz ed , i.e., n o s pe ci fic , in te ntis requi redfor th e co m m is si onof t hi s 9cri m e, on ly a gen eral in te ntto ‘ kn owi ng ly andwil lfu ll y ’ im pe de anoff

ic er i n t he pe rfo rm an ce o f hi s o r he r du ti es .” Id . at 9 20
. 3 Howev er, the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt h as ne ve r equa te d t hi s g en eral in te nt cri m e wit h re ck le ss ne ss . Mo reo ve r, whi le reck le ss ne ss cri m es do no t s at is fy th e 4

“ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” p ro vi si on , Pal om in o Gar ci a, 60 6 F .3dat 1 33 6, n ei th er thi s Co urt n orth e Supr em e Co urt h as sai d a nyth in g abo utge ne ral in te ntcri m es , whi ch is whatwe ha ve he re. In de ed , Flo rid a’s co urts ha ve sp ok enbro ad ly abo ut

“ ge ne ral in te nt ” cri m es in th is way :

Romo-Villalobos’s argument that no intent is required f or the “ offe ringor doing 3 violence” element of

the crime runs direc tly

contra ry to the languag e of F rey , which held that the entire c rime is one of g ener al intent. Indeed, the court spec ifically noted that it was answe ring “whe ther re sisting ar

rest with violence is a g ener al intent or spec ific intent crime.” 708 So. 2d at 919-20. At no point did the Florida Supre me Court say that the statute re quired no g ener al intent, or that it in essence cre ated strict liability for the c rime. The a uthorities that Romo-Villalobos provides for the proposition that g ener al intent 4 crimes only

require rec klessness ar e unper suasive. He first relies on a law re view citation in a non-pre cede ntial concur

ring -dissentingopinion in Frey , 708 So. 2d at 921 (Anstead, J., concur ringin part and dissentingin part), whic h clea rly does not establish binding F lorida prec edent. He also relies on a case discussing the g ener al intent require d for a particula r, and differ ent, crime -- a g gravated assault -- and has not g iven us any rea son to conclude that this definition would apply

to the crime of

resistingan off

icer with violence. See DuPree v. State, 310 So. 2d 396, 399 (Fla. 2d D CA 1975) (“ [T] he ele ment of g ener al intent in ag gravated assault may be satisfied by

proof of wilful and re ckless disreg ard of the safe ty

of others.” ). L astly , as for his reliance on Bla ck’s L aw Dic tionary , its definition of “g ener al intent crime” makes no ref ere nce to r eckle ssness; and while its definition of “g ener al intent” say s that it “usu[ ally] t akes the form of

rec klessness (involvingactua l awar eness of a risk and the culpable taking of that risk) or ne g lige nce ( involving blamew orthy inadver tence ),” this def

inition not ably

uses the word “usually .” More over, this def inition di rec tly

contra dicts the only

definition of “g ener al intent” we c ould find in Florida c ase la w, as discussed inf

ra. 10A “ ge ne ral in te nt ” st atut e is on e th at pr oh ib it s ei th er a sp eci fic vo lu nt ary

act or so m ethi ng th at is subs ta nt ia ll y cert ai n to res ul t fro m th e act (e.g ., da m ag e to a bu il di ng is th e na tu ral res ul t of th e act of se tt in g a bu il di ng afi re). A pe rs on ’s subjec ti ve in te nt to cau se th e pa rti cu la r res ul t is irr el ev an t to ge ne r a l in te nt cri m es be cau se th e la w as cri be s to hi m a pr es um pt io n th at he in te nd edsu ch a res ul t. . . . Thus , in ge ne ral in te nt st atut es wor ds su ch as “ wil lfu ll y ” or “ in te nt io na ll y,” wit ho ut m or e, in di cat e on ly th at th e pe rs on m us t ha ve in te nd ed to do th e act an d se rv e to di st in gu is h th at co nduc t fro m acci de nt al (n on cri m in al ) be ha vi or or st ric t l iabi li ty crim es . . . . Hen tz v. St at e, 62 So . 3d11 84 , 11 90 (Fl a. 4th DCA 2 01 1) (qu ot at io n o m it te d;
em ph as is ad de d) . In o th er wo rd s, Fl or id a cas e la w in stru ct s tha t g en eral in te nt cri m es -- o f whi ch § 8 43 .01 is on e -- ty pi cal ly requ ire so m e fo rm of “ in te nt ” an d are d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m

“ acci de nt al ” o r “ st ric t l iabi li ty” crim es . As a res ul t, the
un de rp in ni ng of o urde ci si on in Pal om in o Gar ci a -- tha t cr im es requi rin g reck le ss ne ss fai l t o s at is fy th e “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” d efi ni ti on be cau se reck le ss ne ss is “ m or e ak in to ne gl ig en ce,” “ can no t b e sa idto requi re the in te nt io na l u se of fo rce,” an d wo ul d “ se em

to in cl ud e” ac ci de nt al co nduc t, 6 06 F.3dat 1 33 5- 36 (quo ta ti onom it te d) -- d oe s n otap pl y he re. Becaus e Fl or id a’s ge ne ral in te nt 5 cri m es pl ai nl y

requi re s om ethi ng m or e th anreck le ss ne ss , th es e k in ds of c rimes are
no t ex em pt edfro m th e “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” d efi ni ti on .
In Palomino Garcia , we he ld that the Arizona crime of ag gravated assault on a la w 5 enfor ceme nt office r wa s not a “c rime of violenc e,” be cause , unlike the Florida re sisting-withviolence statute, the Arizona assa ult statute expressly

permitted a c onviction for “r eckle ss[ ]” conduct that r esulted in phy sical injury . 606 F.3d at 1332. 11Acco rd in gl y , as we h el d i n Un it edSta te s v . Jo ne s, 4 00 F. App ’x 46 2 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 10 ) (u np ub li sh ed ), cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 2 12 8 (2 01 1) , a co nv ic ti on un de r Fl or id a St atut e § 84 3.0 1 “ is su ffi ci en t fo r li ab il it y un de r th e fi rs t p ro ng of t he ACCA, 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i) ,” id . at 4 64 n.4 , andth eref or e co ns ti tu te s a cri m e o f vi ol en ce fo r pu rp os es of t he ele m en ts claus e o f U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A)(i i). Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in im po si ng a 16 -le ve l
en ha nc em en t fo r a p rio r co nv ic ti on of acri m e o f vi ol en ce, b as edon Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s’s re si st in g an o ffi cer wi thvi ol en ce o ffen se . Fi na ll y , we rem ai n u np ers ua de d b y Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s’s ar gu m en t t ha t h is 37 -m on th sen te nc e was un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto gra nthi m a d own wardva ria nc e. W e h av e h el d t ha t a d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi redto de pa rt fro m th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge ba se d o n t he av ai labi li ty of fas t-t rack de pa rtu res inon ly som e d is tri ct s. Un it edSta te s v . Vega -Cas ti ll o, 5 40 F.3d12 35 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). In r each in g t hi s co nc lu si on , we exp la in edth atan y di sp ari ti es crea te d b y

fas t-t rackpro gr am s d o n otfal l wi th in th e sc op e o f th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s a d is tri ctco urt co ns id ers in sen te nc in g. Id . “ Und er the pr io r pr eced en t ru le , we are b ou ndto fol lo w a pr io r bi nd in g p rece de ntun le ss an d
un ti l i t i s o ve rru le d b y

th is co urt en ba nc or b y

th e Supr em e Co urt.” Id . at 1 23 6 (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Sin ce we h av e h el d t ha t ar gu m en ts ba se d o n s en te nc in g 12di sp ari ti es crea te d b y fas t-t rackpro gr am s fa il , we are b ou ndto co nc lu de th at Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s’s ar gu m en t b as edonsu ch reas on in g fa il s. Bu t i n a ny even t, ev enif we wer e to reco ns id er o urpri orpre ced en t, Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s wo ul d n otqu al ify for t he fas t-t rackpro gr am . Purs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 5 K3.1 , “ [u ]ponm ot io n o f th e Gov ern m en t, the co urt m ay de pa rt do wnwar d n otm or e th an4 l ev el s p ur su an t t o an e arl y di sp os it io n p ro gr am au th or iz edby the Att orne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s an d t he Uni te d S ta te s Att orne y forth e d is tri ctin whi ch th e co urt re si de s.” Atth e ti m e o f Ro m oVil la lo bo s’s s en te nc in g, t he Att orne y Gene ral ’s gu id an ce o n fa st -tr ackpro gr am s pr ov id edth atth ey

were n otav ai labl e fo r an y cas e in vo lv in g a n o ffen se de si gn at ed
as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce, an d fu rth erm or e, requi reda de fen da ntto en te r in to a writ te n p le a ag reem en t i nc lu di ng anag reem en t t o t he factua l b as is of t he off en se co nduc t, a wai ve r of

th e p ret ria l m ot io ns de sc rib edin Fed . R. Cri m . P. 12 (b )(3 ), a waiv er o f ap pe al rig ht s, an d awaiv er o f th e o pp ortu ni ty to s eekco ll at eral rel ie f
un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 o n a ny bas is ot he r th anin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. See Un it edSta te s v . Arev al o- Ju arez , 46 4 F .3d12 46 , 12 48 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Bec au se Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s h as a pr io r co nv ic ti on fora cri m e o f vi ol en ce (res is ti ng anoff

ic er wi th vi ol en ce) a ndbe cau se he di d n oten te r in to a writ te n p le a ag reem en t -- two requi rem en ts by the Att orne y Gene ral for

fas t-t rackpro gr am s -- 13Ro m o- Vil la lo bo s d idno t m eetth e Att orne y Gene ral ’s requi rem en ts fora fas t-t rack pr og ram . There fo re, h e wou ldno t h av e b eenen ti tl edto fas t-t rackrel ie f ev enif t he Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a were t o h av e th is ki ndof p ro gr am . See Un it edSta te s v . Veg a-Ca st il lo , 54 8 F .3d98 0, 9 81 -8 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (de nyin g p et it io n fo r reh eari ng enbanc ) (Ca rn es , J., co nc urrin g) (“ If we are go in g t o t ak e a ca se enba nc to reco ns id er o ur. . . pr eced en ts in li gh t o f th e Kim br ou gh de ci si on , itne ed s t o b e on e whe re . . . th ere i s n o app aren t re as onwhy th e d efen da ntwou ldno t h av e b een of fere d t he be ne fit s o f anearl y di sp os it io n p ro gr am

if h e h adbe enin a di st ric t wit h t ha t k in d o f pr og ram .”). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in fai li ng to gra ntRo m o- Vil la lo bo s a v ari an ce, an d we a ffi rm . AFFIRMED.

14