FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 92 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cr-6 03 27 -WJZ-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us W INEX EUGENE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 15 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: W in ex Eug en e p le ad edgu il ty to d is tri bu ti ng 5 g ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , carrying a fi rearm inrel at io n t o adru gtra ffi ck in g c rime, in v io lati on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A), an d p os se ss in g

fir earm s an d a m

m un it io n a s a c on vi ct edfel on , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). If a p ers on is co nv ic te d o f a fel on y co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e o ffen se or fel on y cri m e o f vi ol en ce tha t h e co m m it te d o ve r th e ag e o f 18 , li ke Eug en e was , an d h e h as two pri orfel on y co nv ic ti on s tha t wer e ei th er cr im es of v io le nc e o r co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se s, h e is cla ss ifi edas acare er o ffen de r un de r th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 (a). Th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth at Eug en e’s two pri orFlo rid a co nv ic ti on s fo r fel on y ba tt ery an d s tro ng arm

rob be ry were “ cri m es of v io le nc e” u nd er the sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s, U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ), an d h e was cla ss ifi edas acare er o ffen de r, whi chin crea se d h is gu id el in es ran ge fro m be twee n 1 88 an d 2 35 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t t o b etween26 2 a nd32 7 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Eug en e was sen te nc edto 26 2 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Eug en e ap pe al s fr om

hi s s en te nc e an d a sk s tha t we d et erm in e whe th er h is pr io r Fl or id a fel on y

co nv ic ti on s fo r ba tt ery an d s tro ng arm rob be ry are cr im es of vi ol en ce u nd er the gu id el in es . II. As p artof h is pl ea ag reem en t, Eu ge ne waiv edhi s ri gh t t o app eal hi s co nv ic ti on an d a ll bu t thr ee i ss ue s re la te d t o h is sen te nc e. Und er the ag reem en t, Eug en e co ul d app eal an y sen te nc e im

po se d abo ve th e st atut ory m ax im um forth e 2of

fen se or a s the res ul t o f anup wardde pa rtu re o r va ria nc e fro m th e g ui de li ne s. Eug en e co ul d a ls o app eal th e tr ia l co urt’s co nc lu si on th athi s co nv ic ti on forfel on y ba tt ery un de r Fl or id a st at e law was a c rime of v io le nc e und er the sen te nc in g gu id el in es . Eug en e rai se s tha t l as t i ss ue on ap pe al , bu t al so ask s u s t o d eci de whe th er h is Flo rid a co nv ic ti on forstro ng arm rob be ry is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. The go ve rn m en t ar gu es th atwe sh ou ldno t co ns id er the lat te r is su e b ecau se Eug en e waiv edhi s ri gh t t o app eal it . W e ag ree. W e rev ie w th e v al id it y

of asen te nc in g app eal waiv er de no vo . Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 54 1 F .3d10 64 , 10 66 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The wai ve r m us t b e m ad e kno win gl y

an d v ol un ta ril y . Id
. The wai ve r wil l b e v al idif the go ve rn m en t cansh ow tha t the di stric t co urt s pe ci fic al ly que st io ne d t he de fen da ntab ou t the waiv er o r th atth e rec or d m ak es itcle ar tha t the de fen da ntun de rs to odth e si gn ifi can ce o f th e wai ve r. Id
. At Eu ge ne ’s cha ng e-o f-p le a h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt as ke d h im if h e un de rs to odth athe ha d arig htto ap pe al an d t ha t h e wou ldwaiv e th atrig htsubjec t to cert ai n c on di ti on s as pa rt o f th e p le a ag reem en t. Eug en e res po nd edth athe un de rs to odth e wai ve r an d i ts co nd it io ns an d t ha t h e st il l wi sh edto waiv e h is rig ht to ap pe al . He als o s ai d t ha t h e was waiv in g h is rig htto ap pe al vo lunt ari ly.

3Bec au se we co nc lu de th atEug en e wai ve d h is rig htto ap pe al kn owi ng ly and

vo lu nt ari ly, an d t he qu es ti on whethe r hi s co nv ic ti on forstro ng arm rob be ry is a cri m e o f vi ol en ce was no t an ex cep ti on to th e wai ve r, we di sm is s tha t p orti on of hi s ap pe al . Becau se Eug en e p res erv edhi s ri gh t t o app eal whet he r Fl or id a’s fel on y ba tt ery la w is 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, we n ow turn t o th atis su e. III. W e rev ie w de no vo whet he r a d efen da nt ’s earl ie r co nv ic ti on is 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. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha rr is , 58 6 F .3d12 83 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s d efi ne a cri m e o f vi ol en ce as 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 te rm ex ceed in g o ne y ear, tha t (1 ) ha 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 for ce ag ai ns t the pe rs on of a no th er, o r (2 ) is bu rg la ry of adwel li ng , ars on , or e xt orti on , in vo lv es us e o f expl os iv e, or ot he rwis e in vo lv es co nduc t tha t p res en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury to an othe r. U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ). The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Eu ge ne ’s Flo rid a co nv ic ti on forfel on y

ba tt ery was a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er the gu id el in es . Und er Fl or id a la w, a per so n i s g ui lt y of f el on y ba tt ery if h e “ (a) a ctua ll y or i nt en ti on al ly to uc he s o r st rik es an othe r pe rs on ag ai ns t the wil l o f th e o th er; an d (b ) cau se s g reat

4bo di ly harm , perm an en t d is ab il it y , or p erm an en t d is fig ur em en t.” Fl a. St at .

§ 7 84 .04 1. The Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y co ns id eredwhet he r Fl or id a’s si m pl e b at te ry st atut e, Fl a. St at . § 7 84 .03 , was a v io le ntfel on y un de r th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act ( ACCA), 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c). Jo hn so n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 26 5, 1 26 8 (2 01 0) . Becau se th e d efi ni ti on s o f “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r ACCA an d “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” u nd er the sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s ar e v irtua ll y id en ti cal , we con si de r cas es in te rp ret in g o ne as aut ho rit y incas es in te rp ret in g t he ot he r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Alex an de r , 60 9 F .3d12 50 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). In Jo hn so n , th e Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Fl or id a’s si m pl e b at te ry st atut e was no t n eces sa ril y a vi ol en t fe lo ny becaus e a p ers on co ul d b e co nv ic te d o f th e o ffen se ba se d o n a ny unwan te d, i nt en ti on al ph y si cal co nt act , “ no m at te r ho w sl ig ht .” Jo hn so n , 13 0 S .Ct. at12 70 (qu ot in g Stat e v. Hea rn s , 96 1 S o.2 d 2 11 , 21 8 (Fl a. 20 07 )). Afte r rev ie win g t he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e st atut e, th e Supr em e Co urt de fin ed“ph y si cal for ce” i n t he co nt ex t o f ACCA’s d efi ni ti on of “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” as “ vi ol en t fo rce—th atis , for ce capabl e o f cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or i nju ry to an ot he r pe rs on .” Id
. at12 71 ; se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Harris , 60 8 F .3d12 22 , 12 26 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The Supr em e Co urt re as on edth atth e m in im al co nt actth at

5co ul d re su ltina si m pl e b atte ry

co nv ic ti on was n ot“ph y si cal for ce,” andth us no t ev ery co nv ic ti on forsi m

pl e b at te ry

inFlo rid a was a vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r ACCA. Altho ug h F lo rid a’s fel on y ba tt ery st atut e co nt ai ns th e sa m e “ actua ll y an d in te nt io na ll y

to uc hi ng ” la ng ua ge as the si m pl e b at te ry

st atut e, th e fel on y

ba tt ery st atut e h as anad di ti on al requi rem en t. Co mpa re Fl a. St at . § 7 84 .04 1 wi th id
. § 78 4.0 3. Th e fel on y

ba tt ery st atut e al so requi res th atth e to uc hi ng “ cau se [] great bo di ly harm , perm an en t d is ab il it y , or p erm an en t d is fig ur em en t.” Fl a. St at . § 7 84 .04 1. Th atlan gu ag e m ean s tha t ea chto uc hi ng th atvi ol at es th e fel on y ba tt ery st atut e is no t o nl y “ cap ab le of c au si ng ph y si cal pa in or i nju ry to an othe r pe rs on ,” Jo hn so n , 13 0 S . Ct. at12 71 , itm us t al so actua ll y

cau se gre ator pe rm an en t p hysic al ha rm or i nju ry to an ot he r pe rs on . Se e Fl a. St at .§ 7 84 .04 1. Thu s i t i s i m

po ss ib le for

on e to be co nv ic te d o f fel on y ba tt ery inFlo rid a wit ho ut ha vi ng us ed“ph y si cal for ce” a s d efi ne d i n Jo hn so n . Bec au se itis cle ar tha t Fl or id a’s fel on y ba tt ery st atut e, Fl a. St at .§ 7 84 .04 1, requi res th e u se of f

or ce capabl e o f cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or i njury to an ot he r, Eug en e’s pr io r co nv ic ti on un de r th e st atut e was fora cri m e o f vi ol en ce. And be cau se th atm ean s Eu ge ne ha d two p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r cri m es of vi ol en ce, h e was ap pr op ria te ly clas si fie d a s a c aree r of fen de r un de r th e g ui de li ne s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

hi s s en te nc e. 6DISMI SSED I N PART, AF FIRMED I N PART.

7