FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 11, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 04 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 03 10 -VMC- EAJ-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us JERM AINE BROWN , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Je rm ai ne Bro wn ap pe al s h is 15 1- m on th sen te nc e, im po se d wi th in th eap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge of 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s, af te r pl ead in g g ui lt y

to
co ns pi rin g t o p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te at l eas t 5 00 gra m s o f co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(B) , and84 6. Th is ap pe al pre se nt s t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y en ha nc edBro wn’s s en te nc e u nd er th e car eer- of

fen de r gu id el in e b y

tre at in g h is pri orFlo rid a co nv ic ti on forres is ti ng
anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce as a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce.” Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we affi rm . I. Inpre parin g the pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ), th e p ro ba ti on of fic er d et erm in edth atBro wn qua li fie d fo r an en hanc edgu id el in e ran ge as a

“ care er o ffen de r,” p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 , bec au se he ha d two p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r ei th er a “ co ntro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se ” o r a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce.” Sp eci fic al ly, Bro wn h adbe enpre vi ou sl y co nv ic te d i n New J ers ey forco ns pi racy to di st rib ut e h ero in , whi ch co ns ti tu te d aco nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e o ffen se , andhe ha d al so su st ai ne d aco nv ic ti on in Flo rid a fo r res is ti ng anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce, wh ic h
co ns ti tu te d acri m e o f vi ol en ce. Bro wn o bjec te d t o t he PSI o n t he gro un d t ha t h is Flo rid a co nv ic ti on was n ot a p ro pe r pr ed ic at e fo r th e car eer- of fen de r en ha nc em en t b ecau se itwas n ota cri m e of vi ol en ce u nd er the Gui de li ne s. Th e p ro ba ti onoff ic er re sp on de d tha t, i n Uni te d
2St at es v. Nix (ad op ti ng Uni te d Sta te s v. Ha yes ) , th is Co urt h el d tha t re si st in g a n 1 of fic er wi th vi ol en ce co ns ti tu te s a “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e Arm edCare er Cri m in al Act (“ ACCA”) , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e). Th e p ro ba ti on off ic er n ot edth at , be cau se th e d efi ni ti on s o f “ vi ol en t fe lo ny” un de r th e ACCA an d “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” u nd er the Gui de li ne s ar e subs ta nt ia ll y th e sa m e, an d b ecau se Ni xis bi nd in g p rece de nt , Bro wn’s co nv ic ti on qu al ifi edas acri m e o f vi ol en ce. At the
se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt ag reedwit h, an d a do pt ed , th e p ro ba ti on of fic er’s res po ns e, fi nd in g t ha t Br own ’s Flo rid a co nv ic ti on was p ro pe rly us edas a pr ed ic at e fo r th e car eer- of fen de r en ha nc em en t. Des pi te anap pe al waiv er i n Bro wn’s p le a ag reem en t, t he di st ric t co urt, wi th th e g ov ern m en t’s co ns en t, g ran te d hi m lea ve to ap pe al th is fin di ng . II. W e rev ie wde no vo a di stric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n a ndin te rp ret at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Uni te d Sta te s v. Ma ch ado , 33 3 F .3d12 25 , 12 27 (11 th Cir
. 20 03 ). To qua li fy

foranen ha nc edsen te nc e as a care er o ffen de r, a d efen da ntm us t,
am on g o th er t hi ng s, h av e “ atlea sttwo pri orfel on y co nv ic ti on s o f ei th er a cr im e o f vi ol en ce o r a co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(a ). The re le va nt
United States v. Nix , 628 F.3d 1341 ( 11th Cir. 2010), cert. de nied (U.S. Oct. 3, 2011) 1 (No. 11-5011) ; United States v. Hay es , 409 Fe d. App’x 277 (11th Ci r. 2010), cert. de nied (U.S. Oct. 3, 2011) (No. 10-9621). 3de fin it io n fo r th e te rm “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” i s fo un d i n § 4B 1.2 (a), wh ic h p ro vi de s: The term “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” m ean s an y off en se un de r fed eral or s ta te la w, pu ni sh ab le by im

pr is on m en t fo r a t erm

ex ceed in g o ne y ear, th at — (1 ) ha s as anele m en t t he 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 t he pe rs on of a no th er, o r (2 ) is bu rg lary

of adwel li ng , ars on , or e xt orti on , in vo lv es us e o f ex pl os iv es , or o th erwi se 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 ot he r. U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .2(a ). The de fin it io n o f a cri m e o f vi ol en ce und er § 4B 1.2 (a) i s

“ vi rtu al ly ide nt ic al ” to th e d efi ni ti on of avi ol en t fe lo ny in t he ACCA, an d, th eref or e, th is Co urt ap pl ie s a s im il ar an al y si s i n d eci di ng whet he r a g iv enoff en se qu al ifi es as acri m e o f vi ol en ce o r a v io le ntfel on y . Uni te d Sta te s v. Al exa nd er , 60 9 F.3 d 1 25 0, 1 25 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 78 3 (2 01 1)
. 2 Flo rid a St atut e § 84 3.0 1 p ro vi de s: “ Who ev er kno win gl y an d wi ll fu ll y res is ts , ob st ru ct s, o r op po se s an y off ic er . . . by

off eri ng or d oi ng vi ol en ce t o t he pe rs on of s uc h o ffi cer . . . , is gu il ty of a fel on y of t he th irdde gr ee.” Fl a. St at . § 8 43 .01 . In i nt erp ret in g t he st atut e, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t “ no he ig ht en edor p art ic ul ari zed , i.e., n o s pe ci fic , in te ntis requi redforth e co m m is si on
As discussed below, w e follow Nix/Hayes in concludingthat Florida ’s re sisting-with- 2 violence of

fense qualifies as a

crime of violence unde r the re sidual clause of § 4B1.2( a)( 2). Acc ording ly , we f

ind it unnecessar

y to consider whe ther that off ense a lso contains as an e lement the use, attempted use, or thre atene d use of phy sical for ce, pur suant to § 4B1.2( a)( 1). 4of

th is cri m e, on ly a gen eral in te ntto ‘ kn owi ng ly andwil lfu ll y ’ im pe de anoff

ic er in th e p erfo rm an ce o f hi s o r he r du ti es .” Frey v. St at e , 70 8 S o.2 d 9 18 , 92 0 (F la
. 19 98 ). In Ni x , we hel d tha t a d efen da nt ’s con vi ct io n fo r vi ol at in g § 84 3.0 1
co ns ti tu te d avi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e ACCA. Ni x , 62 8 F .3dat 1 34 2. We were pe rs ua de d b y

th e rat io na le in th e u np ub li sh edop in io n o f Hay es an d a do pt edit s ho ld in g. Id
. In Hay es , app lying th e cat eg or ic al ap pr oa ch , we con cl ud edth ata vi ol at io n o f § 8 43 .01 “ fal ls squa rel y wit hi n ACC A’ s re si du al claus e” b ecau se it pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ri skof p hysic al in jury. Hay es , 40 9 F ed . App ’x at27 8- 79 . W e rea so ne d: “ Co m m on sen se tel ls us em

ph at ic al ly tha t the actof
res is ti ng arre stpo se s a t hr eatof d ire ctco nf ro nt at io n b etween a po li ce o ffi cer a nd th e subjec t o f th e arr es t, cr eat in g t he po te nt ia l fo r se rio us ph y si cal in jury to t he of fic er an d o th ers .” Id. at27 9 (q uo ta ti on an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . Cit in g t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Begay v. Uni te d Sta te s , we fu rth er re as on edth ata 3
Begay v. United States , 553 U.S. 137, 128 S.C t. 1581, 170 L .Ed.2d 490 (2008). I n 3 Begay , the Supreme Court he ld that the term “violent fe lony” did not apply to “ eve rycrime that prese nts a serious potential risk of phy sical injury to another,” but only

to crimes that ar e “roughly simil ar, in kind as we ll as in deg ree of risk posed,” to the examples list ed in the ACCA, namely , burg lary , arson, e x tortion, or crimes involvingthe use of e x plosives. Id. at 142-43, 128 S.Ct . at 1584-85 (quota

tion omit ted). The Supreme Court stated that the e numera ted cr imes “all ty pically involve purposef

ul, violent, and ag g ressive c onduct.” Id. at 144-45, 128 S.Ct. at 1586 (quotations omitted). Strict liabili ty crimes, howe ver, suc h as drivingunder the influence , g ener ally do not involve purposeful, violent, and a g g ressive c onduct, and c ould be committed without “any

criminal intent at all.” Id. at 145, 128 S.Ct. at 1586-87. There fore , the Court 5vi ol at io n o f § 8 43 .01 is “pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve ,” be cau se th e

co m m is si on of the off

en se “ requi res , by it s o wn t erm s, t ha t t he de fen dantha ve kn ow in gl y an d wi ll fu ll y res is te d, o bs tru ct ed , or o pp os edanoff ic er b y of fe ri ng or do in g v io le nc e to th e p ers on of tha t o ffi cer.” Id
. Thu s, t he off en se co nt ai ne d t he
sa m e el em en t o f “pu rp os efu l v io le nc e an d a gg res si on ” as th e o ffen se s en um erat ed in th e ACCA, n am el y , bu rg la ry , ars on , ext orti on , andus e o f ex pl os iv es . Id
. W e reject edth e d efen da nt ’s arg um en t t ha t § 84 3.0 1 c on st itut eda st ric t l iabi li ty offen se , no ti ng th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt i nFrey “ ha s ch arac te riz edth e st atut e as a ge ne ral in te ntcri m e, no t a s tri ctli ab il it y cri m e.” Id
. at 2 79 n.1
. The re i s n o d is pu te th at , pu rs ua ntto Ni x/ Hay es , Flo rid a’s res is ti ng -withvi ol en ce o ffen se co ns ti tu te s a c rime of v io le nc e u nd er t he Gui de li ne s. Se e Alex an de r , 60 9 F .3dat 1 25 3; Uni te d Sta te s v. Ar ch er , 53 1 F .3d13 47 , 13 52 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ [A] prio r pa ne l’s h ol di ng is bi nd in g o n a ll subs eque ntpa ne ls un le ss
an d u nt il itis ov erru le d o r un de rm in edto th e p oi ntof abr og at io n b y th e Supr em e Co urt o r by thi s co urt s it ti ng en ba nc .”). Bro wn co nt en ds , ho wev er, tha t Ni x/ Hay es ha s b eenun de rm in edto th e p oi ntof abr og at io n b y th e rec en t Supr em e Co urt de ci si on in Sy kes v. Uni te d Sta te s , 56 4 U.S. _ _, 1 31 S.Ct . 22 67 , 18 0 L.Ed .2d60

conclude d that New Me x ico’s crime of drivingunder the influence did not qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA. Id. at 148, 128 S.Ct. at 1588. 6(2 01 1)
. 4

In Sy kes , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t an Ind ia naoff en se of kno win gl y

or in te nt io na ll y

fle ei ng fro m

a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer i n ave hi cl e co ns ti tu te d a vi ol en t fe lo ny un de r th e res idua l cl au se of t he ACCA. Sy kes , 56 4 U.S. at__ , 13 1 S.Ct . at 2 27 0- 77 . In re ach in g t hi s h ol di ng , th e Supr em e Co urt fi rs t co m pa red
ve hi cl e fl ig htto th e en um erat edoff en se s (b ur gl ary, ex to rti on , ars on , andus e o f
ex pl os iv es ) an d d et erm in edth atve hi cl e fl ig htis ak in to ars on an d b ur gl ary be cau se ve hi cl e fl ig htpo se s a d an ge r of co ll at eral da m ag e to othe rs an d c reat es a ri skof vi ol en t co nf

ro nt at io n wi th th e p ol ic e. Id
. at _ _, 1 31 S.Ct . at 2 27 3- 74 . The Co urt th encit edst at is ti cs reg ard in g i nju rie s fr om ve hi cl e fl ig ht , ars on , andbu rg la ry , and st at ed : “ Alt ho ug h s ta ti st ic s ar e n otdi sp os it iv e, he re the y co nf irm th e co m

m on se ns e

In his brief, Br own ra ises sever al additional ar guments that do not warr ant much 4 discussion. First, he a

rgues that, in addition to beingoverr uled by Syke

s , Nix/Hays has bee n overr uled by the Supreme Court de cisions inBegay and Johnson v. U

nited States , 559 U.S. __, 130 S.Ct . 1265, 176 L .Ed.2d 1 (2010). H oweve r, both of these case s were decide d prior to Nix/Hayes and, ther efor e, could not have overr uled it. See U

nited States v. W

ilks , 464 F.3d 1240, 1243 (11th Cir. 2006) (statingthat a Supreme Court case decide d prior to this Court’s decision “ca nnot logica lly

be said to over

rule” this Court’s decision). Second, seve ral of B rown’s arguments essentially

challeng e Nix/Hays on the ground that it was wr ong ly decide d rathe r than overr uled by Syke

s . We need not addr ess those ar guments beca use we “ca

nnot overrule a prior [panel]’s holdi ngeven though convince d it is wrong.” See U nited States v. Stee le , 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 1998) ( en banc ). F inally , Br own notes that the district cour t erre d in overr uling his objec tion to the facts of his F lorida convic tion (that he punche d an off icer) bec ause those fac ts came f

rom a police repor

t as opposed to the cha

rg ing doc ument. Be cause Br own makes no fur

ther a rguments in this reg ard, he has wa ived the issue. See U nited States v. Gupta , 463 F.3d 1182, 1195 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (“We may decline to a ddress a

n argument wher e a pa

rty fails to provide a

rguments on the merits of an issue.” ). 7co nc lu si on th atInd iana ’s veh ic ul ar fl ig htcri m e is a vi ol en t fe lo ny.” Id
. at _ _, 1 31 S.Ct . at 2 27 4- 75 . The Co urt d ecl in edto co nduc t Begay ’s “pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , and ag gr es si ve in qu iry” bec au se ris k l ev el s p ro vi de d “ a cat eg or ic al an d m an ag eab le st an da rd ” fo r res ol vi ng th e cas e. Id
. at _ _, 1 31 S.Ct . at 2 27 5- 76 . The Co urt
ex pl ai ne d t ha t “

Begay in vo lv eda cri m e ak into st ric t l iabi li ty, ne gl ig en ce, an d reck le ss ne ss cri m es ; an d t he pu rp os efu l, v io le nt , andag gr es si ve form ul at io n was us edinth atcas e to ex pl ai n t he res ul t.” Id
. at _ _, 1 31 S.Ct . at 2 27 6. Veh ic le fli gh t, ho wev er, was no t a s tri ctli ab il it y , neg li ge nc e, orreck le ss ne ss cri m e, bu t was si m il ar i n ri skto th e enum erat edcri m es , th ereb y qu al ifyin g a s a v io le ntfel on y wit hi n t he ACCA’s res idua l cl au se . Id
. Bro wn ad va nc es sev eral sp eci fic arg um en ts forwhy Sy kes ov erru le s Ni x/ Hay es . Fi rs t, h e arg ue s t ha tSy kes ha s ex em pt edne gl ig en ce an d re ck le ss ne ss cri m es fro m

th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e res idua l cl au se , wher eas Ni x/ Hay es on ly
ex em pt edst ric t l iabi li ty crim es . Howev er, Sy kes do es no t s ta te th atstric t l iabi li ty,
ne gl ig en ce, o r rec kl es sn es s cr im es alwa y s fa ll ou ts id e th e sc op e o f th e res idua l cl au se . Se e Sy kes , 56 4 U.S. at__ , 13 1 S .Ct. at22 75 -7 6. In st ead , Sy kes (rea d i n co nju nc ti on wit h Begay ) refl ect s t he pro po si ti on th at , if an off en se ha s a men s r ea of st ric t l iabi li ty, ne gl ig en ce, o r rec kl es sn es s, t ha t o ffen se wou ldon ly qua li fy as a cri m e o f vi ol en ce u nd er t he res idua l cl au se if i t i s p ur po se fu l, v io le nt , and
8ag gr es si ve , bu t i f an off en se ha s a kno win g o r in te nt io na l men s r ea , th enth e Begay in qu iry beco m es redun da nt , andris k l ev el s wo ul d p ro vi de a su ffi ci en t s ta nd ardfor
m ak in g the cri m e-o f-v io le nc e d et erm in at io n. Se e id
. Becaus e Ni x/ Hay es ap pl ie d th e Begay in qu iry in a dd it io n t o the ris k- le ve l i nq ui ry , th e men s r ea of th e res is ti ng wit h- vi ol en ce o ffen se do es no t af fect Ni x/ Hay es ’s ho ld in g, ev enif, as Bro wn su gg es ts , th atoff

en se is a ne gl ig en ce o r rec kl es sn es s cr im e. Se e Hay es , 40 9 F ed
. App ’x at 2 78 -7 9. Bro wn fu rth er ar gu es th at Ni x/ Hay es was o ve rru le d b ecau se itim pr op erl y rel ie d o nl y

on co m m on sen se to de te rm in e whe th er re si st in g an o ffi cer wi th vi ol en ce p os eda ri skof i nju ry to ot he rs . Howev er, wh il e Sy kes us edst at is ti cs in ad di ti on to co m

m onsen se in an al y zi ng th e ri skpo se d b y ve hi cl e fl ig ht , Sy kes ne ve r st at edth atst at is ti cs m

us t al way s b e u se d i n c on du ct in g aris k a na lysis or t ha t a
co m m on -s en se ass es sm en t o f ri sk , by it se lf, i s i ns uf fic ie nt . Se e Sy kes , 56 4 U.S. at__ , 13 1 S .Ct. at22 74 -7 5. Fi na ll y , Bro wn co nt en ds th at , un li ke Sy kes , th is Co urt i n Ni x/ Hay es di d n ot id en ti fy th e cl os es t an al og ue s among th e en um erat edcri m es to th e o ffen se in qu es ti on . It i s t ru e th at Ni x/ Hay es di d n otsp eci fic al ly ide nt ify whic h o f th e en um erat edcri m es m os t cl os el y res em bl edres is ti ng anoff

ic er wi th vi ol en ce. Se e Hay es , 40 9 F ed . App ’x at 2 78 -7 9. Ho wev er, i t d idde te rm in e th atth e Fl or id a 9of

fen se co nt ai ne d t he same elem en t o f pu rp os efu l v io le nc e an d a gg res si on as the
en um erat edcri m es . Id
. at27 9. Mo reo ve r, ev enth ou gh Sy kes cla rif ie d t he pr oc edur e to be fol lo wedin m ak in g acri m e-o f-v io le nc e d et erm in at io n, t hi s al te red pr oc edur e d oe s n otso co nf li ctwit h t he on e u se d i n Ni x/ Hay es as to ren de r it s ho ld in g i nv al id
. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Veg a- Ca st il lo , 54 0 F .3d12 35 , 12 37 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ Eve n i f th e rea so ni ng of a n i nt erv en in g h ig h c ou rt d eci si on is at o dd s wit h apri orap pe ll at e co urt d eci si on , th atdo es no t p ro vi de th e ap pe ll at e co urt wi th a b as is forde pa rti ng fro m it s p rio r de ci si on .”). Becaus e, pu rs ua ntto Ni x/ Hay es , Fl or id a’s of

fen se of r es is ti ng anoff

ic er wi th vi ol en ce co ns ti tu te s a c rime of vi ol en ce u nd er § 4B 1.2 (a), an d b ecau se Ni x/ Hay es rem ai ns bi nd in g o n t hi s p an el , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

10