FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 20, 2011

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 9

- 1 1 6 0 2

N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 8

- 0 0 0 5 4

- C R

- O R L

- 3 1

- K R S

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

A N T H O N Y G R A N T J A C K S O N

,

a

. k

. a

. A n t h o n y B r a n t J a c k s o n ,

a

. k

. a

. A n t h o n y J a c k s o n ,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( S e p t e m b e r 2 0

, 2 0 1 1 )

O N R E M A N D F R O M T H E

U N I T E D S T A T E S S U P R E M E C O U R T

B e f o r e B A R K E T T

, H U L L a n d M A R C U S

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :T h i s c a s e i s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l i g h t o f J o h n s o n v

.

U n i t e d S t a t e s ,

_ _ U

. S

.

_ _ , 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 1 2 6 5 ( 2 0 1 0 )

. W e p r e v i o u s l y a f f i r m e d

A p p e l l a n t ’ s 1 8 0

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f o l l o w i n g h i s g u i l t y p l e a t o p o s s e s s i o n o f a

f i r e a r m b y a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n

. U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. J a c k s o n , 3 5 5 F

. A p p ’ x 2 9 7 ( 1 1 t h

C i r

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ J a c k s o n I ” ) ( u n p u b l i s h e d )

, v a c a t e d b y 1 3 1 S

. C t

. 8 9 6 ( 2 0 1 1 )

. I n

J a c k s o n I

, A p p e l l a n t a r g u e d

, a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n

i m p o s i n g a n e n h a n c e m e n t b a s e d o n t h e A r m e d C a r e e r C r i m i n a l A c t ( “ A C C A ” )

,

b e c a u s e “ r e s i s t i n g a n o f f i c e r w i t h v i o l e n c e , ” a s d e f i n e d b y t h e F l o r i d a s t a t u t e u n d e r

w h i c h h e w a s c o n v i c t e d

, a n d a s i n t e r p r e t e d b y t h e F l o r i d a S u p r e m e C o u r t

, d o e s n o t

q u a l i f y a s a “ v i o l e n t f

e l o n y ” w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e A C C A

. W e r e j e c t e d t h a t

c l a i m b e c a u s e , u n d e r t h e “ c a t e g o r i c a l ” a p p r o a c h w e u s e i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a

p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n i s a q u a l i f y i n g o f f e n s e f o r A C C A e n h a n c e m e n t p u r p o s e s ,

J a c k s o n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n o f r e s i s t i n g a n o f f i c e r w i t h v i o l e n c e q u a l i f i e s a s a v i o l e n t

f e l o n y u n d e r t h e A C C A

, a n d w e d o n o t t u r n t o a s p e c i f i c f a c t u a l i n q u i r y

. S e e

J a c k s o n I

, 3 5 5 F

. A p p ’ x a t 2 9 8

- 9 9

.

W e a l s o m e n t i o n e d

- - i n r e s p o n s e t o o n e o f J a c k s o n ’ s a r g u m e n t s

- - t h a t

u n d e r o u r l a w , a m i n i m a l a m o u n t o f f o r c e c a n s t i l l c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l e n t f e l o n y ,

c i t i n g o u r d e c i s i o n i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. J o h n s o n , 5 2 8 F

. 3 d 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 8 )

,

r e v e r s e d a n d r e m a n d e d b y 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 1 2 6 5 ( 2 0 1 0 )

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t v a c a t e d

2o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n i n J a c k s o n I a n d r e m a n d e d t h e c a s e t o u s f o r f u r t h e r

c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l i g h t o f i t s d e c i s i o n i n J o h n s o n

. S e e J a c k s o n v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 3 1

S

. C t

. 8 9 6 ( 2 0 1 0 )

. W e a s k e d f o r , a n d h a v e r e c e i v e d

, s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f s f r o m t h e

p a r t i e s o n t h e e f

f e c t o f J o h n s o n o n t h i s c a s e

.

O n r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , w e a f f i r m , o n c e a g a i n , J a c k s o n ’ s s e n t e n c e

. A c r i m e i s a

“ v i o l e n t f

e l o n y ” u n d e r t h e A C C A i f i t s a t i s f i e s t h e “ r e s i d u a l c l a u s e ” o f t h e s t a t u t e ,

w h i c h r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e c r i m e i s p u n i s h a b l e b y m o r e t h a n o n e y e a r i n p r i s o n , a n d “ i s

b u r g l a r y , a r s o n , o r e x t o r t i o n , i n v o l v e s u s e o f e x p l o s i v e s , o r o t h e r w i s e i n v o l v e s

c o n d u c t t h a t p r e s e n t s a s e r i o u s p o t e n t i a l r i s k o f p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o a n o t h e r

. ” 1 8

U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i i ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. I n U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. N i x , 6 2 8 F

. 3 d

1 3 4 1

, 1 3 4 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 0 )

, w e h e l d t h a t r e s i s t i n g a n o f f i c e r w i t h v i o l e n c e i s a

v i o l e n t f e l o n y u n d e r t h e r e s i d u a l c l a u s e

. W e a r e b o u n d t o f o l l o w N i x u n l e s s a n d

u n t i l i t i s o v e r r u l e d b y t h i s C o u r t e n b a n c o r b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

. S e e U n i t e d

S t a t e s v

. V e g a

- C a s t i l l o , 5 4 0 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 5

, 1 2 3 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 8 )

. T h e r e f o r e , w e m u s t

c o n c l u d e t h a t r e s i s t i n g a n o f f i c e r w i t h v i o l e n c e c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l e n t f e l o n y w i t h i n

t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e r e s i d u a l c l a u s e o f t h e A C C A

. 1

Contrary to J ackson’ s arg ument, the United States did not need to c ross-appe al the 1 district court’s ruling apply ing the elements c lause a nd reje cting the applica tion of the residua l
clause in order to pr eser

ve its arg ument perta ining to the r esidual cla use. See U nited States v.
Americ an Ry . Ex p. Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 (1924) (“the appellee may , without taking a

cross-a ppeal, ur g e in support of a decr ee a ny matter a ppear ing in the r ecor d, althoug h his

arg ument may

involve an attac k upon the re asoning of the lowe r cour t or an insistence upon
matter ove rlooked or ig nored by it”); United States v. Arthur Y oung & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 814

3A c c o r d i n g l y , w e s u b s t i t u t e o u r p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a s e w i t h t h i s o n e

a n d a f f i r m J a c k s o n ’ s s e n t e n c e a f t e r o u r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n l i g h t o f J o h n s o n ,

p u r s u a n t t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s r e m a n d

.

O P I N I O N S U B S T I T U T E D ; S E N T E N C E A F F I R M E D

.

n.12 (1984) ( “[A] prevailing pa rty may urg e any g round in support of the judg ment, whether or not that gr ound was re lied upon or eve n considere d by the cour t below.”) . Be cause the

g overnme nt’s relianc e on this alterna tive arg ument -- a dvance d at eve ry step of this liti g ation -- that resisting an off

icer with violence a lso is a violent felony under the residual c lause doe s not seek to “ enlar g [e] ” its rig hts under the district cour t’s order , this arg ument has bee n prese rved
for a ppellate r eview. A merica n Ry . Ex p. Co., 265 U.S. at 435.

4