[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 10489 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:18

- cr - 00099

- EAK

- JSS

- 7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus SHAMAR LAJUAN THOMAS, a.k.a. Baby, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ ( January 9, 2020 ) Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH , and FAY , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 19-10489 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 1 of 42 Shamar Thomas appeals his 420

- month total sentence after a jury convicted him of one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act rob bery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) ; one count of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(3) ; and one count of knowingly using and carrying a firearm in relation to the Hobbs Act robbery , in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(1)(C), and 2

. He argues that the district court committed clear error when it enhanced his sentence for what it determined to be relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1). We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the S entencing Guidelines and accept its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Barner , 572 F.3d 1239, 1247 (11th Cir. 2009). An error in the district court’s calculation of the guideline range warrants vacating the sentence, unl ess the error is harmless. Id. A guideline miscalculation is harmless if the district court would have imposed the same sentence without the error. Id . at 1248. The harmless

error standard is met if it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the [sentence] obtained.” United States v. Paz , 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here, we need not determine whether the district court erred in determining relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1 .3(a)(1). Even if the district court erred in this regard, any error was harmless. It had no bearing on the ultimate offense level

Case: 19-10489 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 2 of 43 the district court determined. That is so because Thomas’s guideline range would have been the same even if there was an e rror in ascertaining relevant conduct

. Thomas was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because his current conviction for Hobbs Act robbery constituted a felony crime of violence , In re Fleur , 824 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2016), and he had two prior felony crime

of

- violence convictions for Florida felony battery and Florida aggravated assault , see United States v. Vail

- Bailon , 868 F.3d 1293 (2017) (en banc); Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium) , 709 F.3d 1328, 1337

- 38 (11th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Hill , 799 F.3d 1318, 1321 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015) ; see also United States v. Golden , 854 F.3d 1256, 1257 (11th Cir. 2017)

. Under § 4B1.1 (b) , “ if the offense level for a career offender from the table [in that section] is greater than the offense level otherwise applicable,” the offense level from the table applies. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). So here, even if the district court erred in determining relevant conduct, the

caree r - offender guideline

— not the offense guideline

— controlled the ultimate offense level and guideline range , since it was higher than the offense level otherwise applicable

. As a result , no matter whether Thomas received the enhancements for conduct that the district court determined to constitute relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(1) , the offense level generated by the career

- offender table was going to replace his initial offense level. Therefore, any potential error in determining the

Case: 19-10489 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 3 of 44 special offense chara cteristic enhancements the district court determined to be applicable based on relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(1) must be harmless because it is clear that the error complained of did not contribute to the sentence imposed , as Thomas would have been sent enced pursuant to the base offense level as a career offender under § 4B1.1 , regardless. See Paz , 405 F.3d at 948

. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10489 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 4 of 4