FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 25, 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- 11854 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 1 0 7 - CR- 3 - RV 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 P E T R O S E D E M O N H O L L A N D , a .k .a . P e tr o s e D e m o n d H o lla n d , a .k .a . P e te rD e m o n H o lla n d , a .k .a . P E P , 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 N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 25, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Prior to H oll and ’sguilty

ple a , th eg ov e rn

ment f ile d a no tic etha

t H oll and wa s su bje c t to 1 enhanc ed penalties beca

use of his prior c onvictions. In ad d i t i on to the threeOctober 12, 1998 convictions, this notice listed a fourth conviction for possession of crac k cocaine on June 19, 1998. Th eg ov e rnment aband on ed re lia nc eon theJune19 , 1 99 8 c onvic tio n a ft e r it de c ide d th at th is 2 A f te rp le a d in g g u ilty , P e tr o s e D e m o n H o lla n d ap p e a ls h is 8 8 - m o n th s e nt e nc e f

orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , i n vi ol a t i on o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(C ), an d (b )(1 )(D ), an d p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a conv i ct ed fe l on , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 92 2(g), and 9 24 (e ), the A rm ed C ar ee r Cr i mi n a l A c t( “ A CCA ” ) . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A tse nt enci ng , H ol l and’ s pre se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ) i nd i ca t ed thatH ol l and h ad three pri or se ri ou s drug con vi ct i on s on O ct ob er12 , 19 98 for three c ount s of “ pos s e s s i on of

a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e s e l l / de l i ve r ” a nd thr e e c ount s of po ss es si on of a c on trol l ed subst ance and t hu s w as an arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal un der 18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) . U nde r§ 924( e ) , a de f e nda ntw ho vi ol a t e s 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) i s a n arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal subj ec tt o a m andat ory m i ni m um fi ft ee n-ye arse nt ence i f he ha s thr e e pr i orc onvi c t i ons “ f ora vi ol e ntf

e l ony ora s e r i ous drug of f e ns e , or b o th , c o m m itte d o n o c c a s io n s d if f e r e n t f r o m o n e a n o th e r. . . .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 924( e ) ( 1) . T he pa r t i e s do notdi s put e tha tH ol l a nd’ s c onvi c t i ons qua l i f y a s s e r i ous drug of f e ns e s . R a the r , the di s put e he r e i s w he the rtw o of hi s thr e e c onvi c t i ons w er e “ com m i tt ed on occa si on s di ff er entfr om on e a no ther” un der § 92 4(e) . 1conviction did not qualify as a serious drugoffense within the meaningof § 924(e )(2) (A)( ii).

3 In thi s r egar d, the P S I a l so no t ed thatthe offens e c on du ctof tw o o f the three O ct ob er12 conv i ct i on s occ urre d o n the sa m e day , O ct ob er8, 19 97 , i n P ensa col a, F lo r id a . A c c o r d in g to th e P S I , H o lla n d c o m m itte d o n e o f th e O c to b e r8 o f

f e n s e s in the a r e a of

Q a nd M or e no S tr e e t . T he s e c ond O c t obe r8 of f e ns e oc c urr e d i n the area o f S an d B l o u n tS treet . T h e th i rd O ct o b er 1 2 co n v i ct i o n i n v o l v ed o ffen se c o n d u c t o n O c to b e r2 2 , 1 9 9 8 a n d o c c u rr e d in th e a r e a o f Q a n d B lo u n t S tr e e t. H ol l and o bj ec t ed t o the arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal enhancem ent s, ar gu i ng that h is O c to b e r1 2 , 1 9 9 8 c o n v ic tio n s w e r e p a r t o f a “s in g le c r im in a l e p is o d e ” a n d d id no tqu al i fy as offe nses “ com m i tt ed on occa si on s di ff er entfr om on e a no ther” un der § 9 2 4 ( e ) . H o lla n d d id n o t c o n te s t th e n a tu r e o f h is o f f e n s e s , b u t r a th e rw h e th e rh is offe nse m etthe di ff

er entocca si on re qu i re m enti n § 92 4(e) . A t s e n te n c in g a n d w ith o u t o b je c tio n , th e g o v e rn m e n t in tr o d u c e d in to evi dence ce rt i fi ed copi es of H ol l and’ s i nform at i on s a nd arre stre po rt s f or the three O ct ob er19 98 offe nses . In addi t i on , the di stri ctcourthear d the t es t i m on y of P et er S t e ve n B ondj uk, S pe c i a l A ge ntw i th the B ur e a u of A l c ohol , T oba c c o, F i r e a r m s a nd E x p l o si v es. B o n d

j u k t est i fi ed th ath e o b t ai n ed co p i es o f H o l l an d ’ s i n fo rm at i o n s, se nt ence s a nd j ud gem entfor the O ct ob er19 98 conv i ct i on s. B on dj uk t es t i fi ed that tw o o f th e th r e e c a s e s o c c u rr e d o n O c to b e r8 , 1 9 9 7 . B o n d ju k a ls o h a d s p o k e n w ith4

the offi ce r w ho w rot e the arre stre po rt s f or the O ct ob er8 o ff

ense s t o con fi rm that the of f e ns e c onduc ton M or e no a nd Q S tr e e toc c urr e d a t5: 02 p. m . a nd tha tthe of f e ns e c onduc ta tB l ounta nd S S tr e e toc c ur r e d a t5: 18 p. m . on the s a m e da y . T he o f f ic e ra ls o to ld B o n d

ju k th a t th e s a m e c o n f

id e n tia l in f

o r m a n t w a s u s e d in b o th cont rol l ed pu rc hase s a nd thatthe confi dent i al i nform antre conn ec t ed w i th a l aw enforce m entoffi ce r t o h and o ver the evi dence betw ee n the tw o con trol l ed p u r c h a s e s . B o n d

ju k a ls o s ta te d th a t Q S tr e e t w a s ap p r o x im a te ly a b lo c k a n d a h a lf a w a y f r om S S tr e e ta nd tha ts tr e e tde a l e r s us ua l l y w or k i n a c onc e ntr a t e d a r e a , but thatthey do n otst ay i n o ne part i cul arspotbecause they try t o ass ertt erri t ori al c ontr ol . W i th r e ga r d t o the O c t obe r22 of f e ns e , B ondj uk t e s t i f

i e d tha the di d not know w he the rthe s a m e c onf i de nt i a l i nf

or m a ntw a s us e d. F o l l o w i n g th i s ev i d en ce, H o l l an d arg u ed th atth e tw o O ct o b er 8 o ffen ses, w hi ch occurre d w i thi n tw o b l ocks of ea ch ot her a nd si xt ee n m i nu t es apar t , w er e one c ont i nuous a c ta nd s houl d be c ount e d a s one c onvi c t i on f orpurpos e s of

the AC C A. T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r to v e rru l e d Ho l l a n d ’ s o b j e c t i o n , f i n d i n g th a tth e two O c t obe r8 of

f e ns e s oc c urr e d on di f

f e r e ntoc c a s i ons w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the AC C A. T he di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the P S I ’ s gui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i ons , gi vi ng H ol l a ndTh ePSI re c omm e nd e d th at, u

nd e r U .S. S.G . § 4B 1. 4, Ho lla nd ’s of fens ele ve l sh ould 2 incre ase to level 34 due to his arme d career criminal status. After

rec eivinga thre e-level re duction for acceptanceof re sponsibili ty , pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, Holland’s total off ense level was 31. 5 an offens e l evel of 31 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of V I, w hi ch re sul t ed i n an 2 ad v i so ry g u i d el i n es ran g e o f 1 8 8 t o 2 3 5 m o n th s. T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n gr a nt e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s U . S . S . G . § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on fo r a su b st an t i al assi st an ce d ep artu re an d sen t en ced H o l l an d t o 8 8 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ctcourtst at ed that , i n i m po si ng the se nt ence , i thad c o n s id e r e d th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s a n d a ls o th e f

a c t th a t H o lla n d “o n ly m arg i n al l y” q u al i fi ed as an arm ed career crim i n al , as fo l l o w s: I h a v e ta k e n in to a c c o u n t th e f a c t th a t w h ile te c h n ic a lly y o u d o f a ll w ith in th e A r m e d C a r e e rC r im in a l A c t, c e r ta in ly it’s o n ly m a r g in a lly w i thi n i tbe c a us e of

the t e c hni c a l i t i e s w e ha ve c ove r e d. H ol l and app ea l s hi s 88-m on th sent ence . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, H o lla n d a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d im p e r m is s ib le s our c e s i n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rhi s c onvi c t i ons oc c urr e d on di f f e r e ntoc c a s i ons f

or pu rposes of the A C C A . B ec ause H ol l and d i d n otra i se thi s a rgum enti n the di stri ct c our t , w e r e vi e w onl y f

orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 12 92 , 12 98 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , “ [a ] n app el l at e c ou rtm ay n o tco rrectan erro r th e d efen d an tfai l ed t o rai se i n th e d i stri ctco u rtu n l ess th ere i s:6

‘ ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ’ ” I d. a t1298 ( quot i ng i n pa r tU ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ott on, 535 U . S . 625, 631, 122 S . C t . 1781, 1785 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ) . I f

th e s e th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, “a n ap p e lla te c o u rt m a y th e n e x e r c is e its di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f

or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl y i f

( 4) the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . “ [ T ] he r e c a n be no pl a i n e rr orw he r e the r e i s no pr e c e de ntf r om the S upr e m e C our torthi s C our tdi r e c t l y r e s ol vi ng [ the i s s ue ] . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e j a r de - R a da , 319 F . 3d 1288, 1291 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . H e r e , e ve n a s s um i ng a r gue ndo tha tthe r e w a s e rr or , i tw a s notpl a i n. In 19 90 , the S up re m e C ou rthel d that18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e ) m andat ed a f orm al c a t e gor i c a l appr oa c h w he n de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra pr i orc onvi c t i on w a s a vi ol e nt fe l on y or ase ri ou s drug o ff ense for purpo se s of the A C C A . S ee T ay l or v. U ni t ed S t at es , 49 5 U . S . 57 5, 60 0-02 , 11 0 S . C t . 21 43 , 21 59 (199 0). U nd erthi s c at egori ca l ap p ro ach , a sen t en ci n g co u rtw as p erm i tt ed t o l o o k o n l y t o th e st atu t o ry el em en t s o f th e p r io ro f

f e n s e s , th e c h a r g in g d o c u m e n ts a n d th e ju ry in s tru c tio n s , b u t c o u ld no tl oo k t o the part i cul arfa ct s und er l yi ng the conv i ct i on s. Id. at60 2, 11 0 S . C t . at 2160. I n 2 0 0 0 , th is C o u r t r e je c te d th e a r g u m e n t th a t th e c a te g o r ic a l ap p r o a c h in T ayl o r p ro h i b i t ed a sen t en ci n g co u rtfro m co n si d eri n g p o l i ce rep o rt s an d arrest7

re cords w hen d et erm i ni ng w hether adefe nd ant ’ s pri or conv i ct i on s w er e c om m i tt ed on di f f e r e ntoc c a s i ons unde rthe A C C A . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R i c ha r ds on, 230 F . 3d 1297, 1299- 1300 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T hi s C our tc onc l ude d tha tw he the rthe c onvi c t i ons w e r e c om m i tt e d on di f f e r e ntoc c a s i ons w a s “ a que s t i on uns ui t e d t o a ca t egori ca l approach thatre l i es on an exam i nat i on of the cr i m i nal st atut e. ” I d. at 13 00 . A l tho ug h w e “ re cogn i z[ ed] the ri sk of conv ert i ng a s ent enci ng procedure i nt o a m i ni - tr i a l of

the f a c t s , ” w e a l s o not e d tha tthe de f e nda ntdi d notc ont e s tthe a c c u r a c y o f

th e p o lic e r e p o r ts a n d th e r e p o r ts r e v e a le d f a c ts o r d in a r ily r e la y e d in pol i c e r e por t s , s uc h a s the t i m e a nd da t e of the of f e ns e c onduc t . I d. In 2 0 0 5 , th e S u p rem e C o u rtel ab o rat ed u p o n th e cat eg o ri cal ap p ro ach fi rst re cogn i ze d i n T ay l or and con cl ud ed thatthe di stri ctcourtcoul d n otl oo k atpo l i ce r e c or ds a nd r e por t s i n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe c onvi c t i ons w e r e vi ol e ntf e l oni e s or s e r io u s d ru g o f

f e n s e s . S e e S h e p a r d v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 4 4 U .S . 1 3 , 1 6 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 12 54 , 12 57 (200 5). Im po rt ant l y, S hepard di d n otaddres s adi stri ctcourt ’ s i nq ui ry unde rthe A C C A a s t o w he the rthe pr i orc onvi c t i ons w e r e c om m i tt e d on di f f e r e nt occa si on s. F urtherm ore, si nce S hepard w as deci ded, thi s C ou rthas notaddres se d w he the rS he pa r d’ s ba n on the us e of pol i c e r e c or ds a nd r e por t s appl i e s t o § 9 2 4 (e)’ s “ d i fferen to ccasi o n s” i n q u i ry an d th u s, as H o l l an d su g g est s, “ n u l l i fi es” ou r dec i si on i n R i char dson . B ec ause nei ther the S up re m e C ou rtno r thi s C ou rthasWe reviewde novo the leg al deter mination that offense s we re d i s t inct under theACCA. 3 United States v. Pope, 132 F.3d 684, 689 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 8 di re ct l y r es ol ved t he qu es t i on , any e rr or i n H ol l and’ s c as e w as no tob vi ou s or c l ea r unde rc urr e ntl a w a nd thus w a s notpl a i n. A l t ern at i v el y, H o l l an d arg u es th at , ev en i f a co u rtm ay co n si d er arrest re po rt s a nd t es t i m on y abo uthi s tw o O ct ob er8, 19 98 offe nses , the di stri ctcourt e rr e d i n c o n c l u d i n g th a th i s two o f f e n s e s we r e d i s t i n c tf

o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e AC C A. 3 Th e A CCA d o e s n o tr e q u i r e th a tth e p r e d i c a t e o f f e n s e s b e s e p a r a t e d “ b y s o me subst ant i al am ou ntof t i m e. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. P op e, 13 2 F . 3d 68 4, 69 1 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). R ather, “ so l on g as pre di ca t e c ri m es ar e s ucce ss i ve ra ther than si m ul t aneous, they c on st i tut e s epar at e c ri m i nal epi sodes . . . . ” I d. at69 2. M ore s pe c i f i c a l l y , “ the ‘ s uc c e s s f

ul ’ c om pl e t i on of

one c r i m e pl us a s ubs e que ntc ons c i ous d e c is io n to c o m m it a n o th e rc r im e m a k e s th a t s e c o n d c r im e d is tin c t f r o m th e f ir s t . . . .” I d . T h u s th e A C C A w ill ap p ly “to c r im in a ls w h o c o m m it th r e e c r im e s in t e m por a l a nd phy s i c a l pr oxi m i ty t o one a nothe ri f the pe rpe tr a t orha d a m e a ni ngf ul oppor tuni ty t o de s i s thi s a c t i vi ty be f or e c om m i tt i ng [ a nothe r ] of f e ns e . ” I d. a t690 ( c o n c lu d in g th a t tw o b u r g la r ie s c o m m itte d o n th e s a m e e v e n in g in s e p a r a te b u i l d i n g s 2 0 0 yard s ap artw ere su ffi ci en t l y d i st i n ctu n d er th e A C C A ); see al so Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S p e a r s , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 1 3 5 8 , 1 3 6 0 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g th a ttwo robb er i es com m i tt ed w i thi n tw o m i nu t es and t hi rty f ee tof ea ch ot her w er e9

suff i ci ent l y di st i nctun der the A C C A ). He r e , a c c o r d i n g t o th e P S I , wh i c h Ho l l a n d d i d n o td i s p u t e , th e two cont rol l ed drug bu ys on O ct ob er8 o cc urre d atdi ff er entt i m es , se para t ed by si xt ee n m i nut e s , a nd a tdi f

f e r e ntl oc a t i ons , s e pa r a t e d by a f e w bl oc ks . T he s e t e m por a l a nd ph ys i ca l brea ks gave H ol l and a “ m ea ni ng ful op po rtun i ty” t o st op before c om m i tt i ng the s e c ond of f e ns e . T hus , H ol l a nd’ s tw o O c t obe r8, 1998 drug o ffen ses w ere sep arat e cri m i n al ep i so d es fo r p u rp o ses o f th e A C C A . A cco rd i n g l y, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n s e nt e nc i ng H ol l a nd a s a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l , a nd w e a ff i rm H ol l and’ s 88-m on th sent ence . AF F I RME D.