FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 13, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 27 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cr-0 00 15 -MM H-JR K-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us JI MM Y A. JONES, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 3, 2 01 0) Befo re EDMONDSON, BLACK an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ji m

m y A. Jo ne s re cei ve d a18 0- m on th sen te nc e, th e st atut ory m in im um un de r th e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (AC CA), 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e), aft er p le ad in g gu il ty to p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a con vi ct edfel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). On ap pe al , Jo ne s as se rts th e d is tri ctco urt erredin sen te nc in g h im un de r th e ACCA b ecau se on e o f hi s p rio r cri m es —re si st in g a n o ffi cer wi th vi ol en ce i n v io la ti on of F lo rid a St atut e § 84 3.0 1— sh ou ldno t qua li fy as a pr ed ic at e o ffen se un de r th e st atut e. The di stric t co urt d idno t err in fin di ng th atFlo rid a St atut e § 84 3.0 1 co ns ti tu te s a p red ic at e o ffen se un de r th e ACCA. A pre di cat e “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” is 1 an y cri m e p un is habl e b y

m or e th anon e y ear i n p ris onan d t ha t “ ha s as anele m en t th e u se , att em

pt edus e, orth reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t t he pe rs on of an ot he r.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(B) (i) . To d et erm in e whe th er a p rio r co nv ic ti on 2 is a qu al ifyin g o ffen se un de r th e ACCA, we ap pl y a cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch . Uni te d St at es v. Har riso n , 55 8 F .3d12 80 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Tha t i s, we l oo k o nl y

We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s dete rmination that a par ticular c onviction qualifies 1 as a “ violent felony” under the ACCA. United States v. Canty , 570 F.3d 1251, 1254 ( 11th Cir. 2009). A cr ime can a lso be a “ violent felony” if it is punishable by more than one y ear

in 2 prison, and “is burg lary , arson, or extorti on, involves use of e x plosives, or otherwise involves conduct that pr esents a se rious potential risk of phy sical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2)( B) (ii). It appea rs that neither

the cour t nor the par

ties addre ssed this residual cla use in the district court, so we w ill not address it on appea l. 2at“ 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
. (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atth e type o f “ph y si cal for ce” r equi redun de r th e ACCA i s “ vi ol en t

for ce—th atis , for ce capabl e o f cau si ng ph y si cal pa in or in jury to an ot he r pe rs on .” Jo hn so n v . Uni te d Sta te s , 13 0 S . Ct. 1 26 5, 1 27 1 (2 01 0) (h ol di ng th atsi m

pl e b at te ry

—t he actua l an d i nt en ti on al to uc hi ng of a no th er— do es no t co 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 for ce,” n ot m erel y off en si ve co nt act ). Tho ug h t he m ean in g o f “ph y si cal for ce” i s a q ue st io n of fed eral law, n otst at e law, we are b ou ndby the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e el em en ts of t he st atut e atis su e. Id
. at12 69 . Fl or id a St atut e § 84 3.0 1 s ta te s i n p ert in en t p art : “ Who ev er kno win gl y an d wil lfu ll y res is ts , ob st ru ct s, o r op po se s an y off ic er . . . inth e la wfu 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 onof s uc h o ffi cer . . . is gu il ty of a fel on y

of t he th irdde gr ee . . . .” As to th e so rt o f fo rce r equi redto su st ai n aco nv ic ti on un de r § 8 43 .01 , Flo rid a ap pe ll at e co urts ha ve he ldth at

“ vi ol en ce i s a n eces sa ry

ele m en t o f th e o ffen se ,” in di cat in g t ha t m ere o ffen si ve to uc hi ng , li ke in si m

pl e b at te ry , wou ldno t s uf fic e. Se e Raw li ng

s v. Sta te , 97 6 S o.

32d11 79 , 11 81 (Fl a. 5t h DCA 2 00 8) ; Har ris v. Sta te , 5 So . 3d75 0, 7 51 (Fl a. 1s t

DCA 20 09 ). 3 Mo reo ve r, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h as sp eci fic al ly recog ni zedth e di st in ct io n d rawn by the U.S. Sup rem e Co urt i n Jo hn so n —n am el y , th atth e of fen si ve to uc hi ng in vo lv edin si m pl e b at te ry

do es no t ri se to th e le ve l o f “ vi ol en t fo rce.” In St at e v. Hea rn s , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t b at te ry on a la w-en fo rcem en t o ffi cer r equi res m erel y no nv io le nt , alb ei t u nwa nt ed , con ta ct , and th atitne edno t i nv ol ve “ th e u se or t hr eatof p hysic al for ce o r vi ol en ce.” Se e 96 1 So . 2d21 1, 2 15 (Fl a. 20 07 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt h el d t ha t b atte ry ona lawen fo rcem en t o ffi cer d oe s n otco ns ti tu te a “ fo rci bl e fel on y ” u nd er Fl or id a la w. Id
. at21 8– 19 . Bu t, as a Fl or id a ap pe ll at e co urt h as ex pl ai ne d, “ [R]esi st in g an o ffi cer wi th vi ol en ce t o h is or h er p ers on , in vi ol at io n o f se ct io n 8 43 .01 , di ffer s s ig ni fic an tl y fro m si m pl e b at te ry

on a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer . . . .” Har ris , 5 So . 3dat 7 51 . Inot he r wor ds , bec au se “ vi ol en ce i s a n eces sa ry ele m en t o f th e o ffen se ,” Raw li ng s , 97 6 S o. 2 d a t 1 18 1, “ res is ti ng anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce” i s u nl ik e th e
When the state supre me cour t has not definitively

deter mined a point of state law , we 3 are 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). 4m ere t ou ch in g a t i ss ue insi m pl e b at te ry . Rath er, a v io la ti on of § 84 3.0 1 i nv ol ve s th e so rt o f “ vi ol en t

for ce” c on te m

pl at edby the Supr em e Co urt as fal li ng wit hi n t he sc op e o f th e ACCA. Jo hn so n , 13 0 S . Ct. at12 71 . 4 App lying a cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , we con cl ud e th ata co nv ic ti on un de r Fl or id a St atut e § 84 3.0 1 c on st itut es a pr ed ic at e “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e ACCA. Acco rd in gl y , Jo ne s’s s en te nc e is affi rm ed . 5 AFFIRMED.

J ones argues that the “ offe ringor doingviolence” element of § 843.01 cannot satisfy

the 4 ACCA’s “violent forc e” r equire ment beca use a de fenda

nt could “off

er[] or do[ ] vi olence ” in a mere ly neg lige nt or rec kless way . We are unpersua ded by this argument. Even if § 843.01 is a g ener al intent crime, see Fre y v. State , 708 So. 2d 918, 920 (Fla. 1998) , the fa ct re mains that the sort of for ce c ontemplated by the statute is “violent forc e,” see Rawlings , 976 So. 2d at 1181 (“[V]iol ence is a nec essar y element of

the offe nse.”) . This is sufficient for liability under the first prongof the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)( 2)(B )(i). J ones also conte nds that the district court er red by concludingit was bound by an 5 unpublished opinion, United States v. J ackson , 355 Fe d. App’x 297 (11th Ci r. 2009). We re view the cour t’s relianc e on Jack

son only for plain e rror

beca use Jones did notobject in the district court. See U

nited States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221, 1238 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (re viewingfor plain err or whe re the defe ndant fa iled to object). He re, the court e ven spec ifically asked if e ither par

ty disagree d that Jack

son controlled, a

nd J ones said nothing . We conclude that any

err or did not aff

ect the outc ome of the pr ocee dings. See U nited States v. Rodriguez , 398 F.3d 1291, 1299 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (holding w e may corr ect a n err or only if, amongother thing s, the err or “a ffe cted the outc ome of the district c ourt proce eding s”) (quotations omitted). The district cour t specifica lly

stated that, eve n without Jack son , “the only conclusion one c an cometo” usingthe categ orica l approa ch is that Florida Statute § 843.01 constitutes a pre dicate of

fense under the ACCA. 5