FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT SEPT 27 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11680 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 5 2 0 - C R - T - 1 7 - MAP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s E R I C A L E J A N D R O M A Y S O N E T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 27, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E r i c A l e j a ndr o M a y s one ta ppe a l s hi s 188- m ont h s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f t e rheThe infor mation identified the three felony convictions: (1) a conviction in 2002 for be ing 1 felon in possession of a firea rm and car

rying a conce aled firea

rm; (2) a conviction in 2004 for the ag gravated batter

y of a pregnant woman; and (3) convictions in 2004 for, amongothers, grand the ft of a motor vehicle, battery on a law enforc ement off

icer , obstructingor opposinga law enforc ement of fi c e r wi th vio le nc e , and burg lary and tr e sp a ss of a c onve yanc e . Al tho ugh the date o f the fir st felony conviction is stated i n the i nformation as 1987, the cor rec t date is stated in the Prese ntence Inv e sti g atio n Repo rt

a s 2 00 2, and

May so ne t ha s n ot disp ute d a ny of his prior fe lony c onvic tio ns . 2 p le d g u ilty to b e in g a f

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a r m in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 92 2(g)(1) and 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e ) a nd w as se nt ence d as a n arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .4 . W e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D O n 1 1 S ep t em be r2005 M a y s one t , a c onvi c t e d f e l on, a t t e m pt e d t o r ob a c onve ni e nc e s t or e w i th a S m i t h an d W e s s on . 44 m a gnum r e vol ve r . H i s a t t e m pt w as thw ar t ed by t he st ore c l er k. M ay sonetw as ar re st ed att he sc ene of the cr i m e. F o llo w in g th e f

a il e d r o b b e r y a tte m p t, M a y s o n e t w a s c h a r g e d in th e M id d le D i s tr i c to f F l o ri d a w i th be i ng a f e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 922( g) . S ubs e quen tt o the i ni t i a l c om pl a i nt , t he gove r nm e ntf i l e d a s in g le - c o u n t i n f

o r m a tio n c h a r g in g M a y s o n e t n o t o n ly w ith v io la tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 92 4(g), bu tal so w i th h av in g th re e pri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s i n v i ol at i on of § 92 4(e) . B ec ause of t hese pri or fe l on i es , the i nform at i on char ged M ay so n etun der

1 18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) ( 1) , r e qui r i ng t ha ta pe r s on w i th m or e t ha n thr e e pr e vi ous v i o l en tfel o n y co n v i ctio n s b e i m p ri so n ed fo r a m i n i m u m o f fi ft een years.Ma y so ne t had rai sed a si mi lar argument b e fo rethePSI

wa s p repa

re d in his c a se . In f

a c t, 2 as ea rly as his plea he aringbefore the mag istrate judg e in Dec ember 2005, Maysonet argued that car rying a conce aled f

irea rm was “ not a violent crime.”R2 at 8.

3 M a y s one tpl e d gui l ty t o the c ha r ge s c ont a i ne d i n the i nf or m a t i on. In t he P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R epor t ( “ P S I” ), the prob at i on offi ce r re c omme nd e d tha tM a y s on e tr e c e i ve a n e nh a nc e d s e nt e nc e pu r s ua ntt o the “ A r m ed C ar ee r C ri m i nal A ct ” ( “ A C C A ”) , § 9 24 (e ), an d U .S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 4 (N ov . 20 05 ). U n d e r t h e S e n t e n c in g G u id e lin e s , th e o f f e n s e le v e l f

o ra n a r m e d c a r e e rc r im in a l is 34 i f the d efendantus e d orpos s e s s e d the f i r e a r m i n c onne c t i on w i th a “ c r i m e of vi ol e nc e . ” § 4B 1. 4( b) ( 3) ( A ) . B e c a us e o f appl i c a bl e e nha nc e m e nt s , t he pr oba t i on offi ce r r ec om m ended t hath is offe nse l evel be i ncre as ed fr om 28 t o 3 4. A ft era r e duc t i on of

thr e e l e ve l s f

orM a y s one t ’ s a c c e pt i ng resp ons i bi l i ty a nd a s s i s t i ng t he i nv es t i gat i ng aut ho ri t i es , the prob at i on offi ce r c on cl ud ed t hatM ay son et ’ s a dj ust ed of f e ns e l e ve l w a s 31 an d h i s cr i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y w a s V I ; thi s r e s ul t e d i n a gu i del i ne ra ng e of 188 -2 3 5 m o n ths of i m pri sonm ent , w i th a st atut ory m andat ory m in im u m s e n te n c e o f

f if te e n y e a r s ( 1 8 0 m o n th s ) . M ay sonetobj ec t ed t o t he appl i ca t i on of § 9 24 (e ) to en hance hi s s ent ence . H i s obj ect i o n fo c us e d on the f i r s tpr e di c a t e c onvi c t i on i n 2002, f orc a r r y i ng a conceal ed fi re ar m , w hi ch he cont ended d i d n otconst i tut e a “ vi ol en t f elo ny” und er §§ 924( e ) ( 1) a nd ( e ) ( 2) . B e c a us e he ha d not be e n c onvi c t e d o f t h ree “vi ol e nt 24

fe l on i es , ” M ay sonetar gu ed t ha t an enh ance d sent ence as an ar m ed ca re ercr i m i nal w o u ld b e in a p p r o p r ia te . A t h is s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , M a y s o n e t r e ite r a te d th is obj e c t i on. T he di s tr i c tc ourt o ve r rul e d M a y s one t ’ s obj e c t i ons a nd a c c e pt e d t he s e nt e nc i ng c a l c ul a t i on i n the P S I , a nd s e nt e nc e d M a y s one tt o 188 m ont hs of i nc a r c e r a t i on. O n a pp e a l , M a y s on e t a r gu e s tha t ( 1) the di s tr i c t c ou r t e r r e d i n f i nd i ng t hat hi s pr i orc onvi c t i on f

orc a r r y i ng a c onc e a l e d f i rearm co ns t i tut e d a vi ol e ntf e l ony un der § 92 4(e) (1); and (2) hi s r i gh t s und ert he F i fth and S i xt h A m endm ent s w er e vi ol a t e d by tha tde t e r m i na t i on. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . C a r r yi ng a C o nc e a l e d Fi r e a r m a s a “ Vi o l e nt Fe l o ny”

“ T he i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

a s t a tut e . . . i s a que s t i on of l a w s ubj e c tt o de novo re vi ew . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. W i l k, 45 2 F . 3d 12 08 , 12 21 n. 20 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). In a d d itio n , “[ t]h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e [ S ]e n te n c in g [ G ]u id e lin e s is subj ec tt o d e nov o revi ew on appeal , w hi l e i t s f ac tual fi nd i ng s m ustbe ac ce pt ed un l es s c l ea rl y e rr on eous. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Jordi , 41 8 F . 3d 12 12 , 12 14 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A f te rU n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 738 ( 2005) , the di s tr i c tc our tm us tt a ke i nt o a c c ountthe s e nt e nc i ng r a nge pr e s c r i be d by the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3dUn d e r F l o ri d a L aw , c ar r yi n ga c o n c e a l e d w e a

p o n i s a th i r d d e gr e e f e l o ny, p un i s h a

b l e b y a 3 term of imprisonment not exceedingfive year s. Fla. Stat. §§ 790.01 and 775.082( 3)(d) . Under the SentencingGuideli n es, a “ crime of violence”is likewise define d to include 4 felonies involving“conduc t that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) . 5 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T he r e i s a s t a tut or y m a nda t or y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e of f i f t e e n y e a r s of i m pri sonm entfor a conv i ct ed fe l on w ho po ss es se s a fi re ar m w here the i nd i vi du al ha s thr e e pr e vi ous vi ol e ntf e l ony c onvi c t i ons . 18 U . S . C . § 924( e ) ( 1) . “ V i ol e nt fe l on y” i ncl ud es “ any a ctof j uv eni l e del i nq uency i nv ol vi ng t he use or c ar ry i ng of a fi re ar m , ” pun i shabl e f

or a t er m of i m pri sonm entexce edi ng on e y ea r i f c om m i t t ed by an adul t , w here the fe l on y “ i nv ol ves c on du ctt hatpres ent s a se ri ou s pot ent i al

3 ri sk of ph ys i ca l i nj ury t o ano ther. ” 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e )( 2)(B )( i i ). In such a c as e, th e d e f e n d a n t is s e n te n c e d a s a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r im in a l. S e e U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .4 ( a ) . T he S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ec om m end an o ff ense l evel of 34 for a n arm ed ca re er c r im in a l w h e r e th e d e f

e n d a n t “u s e d o rp o s s e s s e d th e f ir e a r m o ra m m u n itio n in c onne c t i on w i th . . . a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e . ” U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 4( b) ( 3) . T he de f i ni t i on of a “ [ c ] r i m e of

vi ol e nc e ” unde rthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s i s s i m i l a rt o the defi ni t i on of “ vi ol entfe l on y” un der § 92 4(e) (2)( B ). 4 M a y s one t ’ s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n c ons trui ng hi s 2002 c onvi c t i on f

orc a r r y i ng a c onc e a l e d w e a pon a s a vi ol e ntf e l ony f orpurpos e s ofNonethele ss, May sonet attempts to argue that Hall and Gilbert havebeen erode d by United 5 State s v . Johns on , in

wh ic h w e c on c lud e d th at po sse ssi on of a fi re arm by a fe lon did no t c on sti tut e a “c rime of v i o l ence” f

or purpose s of 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)( 2), the fe deral statute addre ssing the detention of a

convicted de fenda

nt beforesentenc ing. 399 F . 3d 1297, 1299-1300 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). J ohnson involved a different c rime–possession of a f irea rm by a fe lon

– ra th erthan the crime of ca

rry ing a conce aled f

irea rm at issue in this case. A s we madeclea r in Hall, ca

rry ing a c o n ce al edwe ap o np o s es a gr eat er ri s k o f p hy s i ca li n

j ury th anp o s s es s i o n , s i n ce , b y c arryi n g a c on c e a le d we a

po n, “ the pe rs on ha s take n the e xtra step of havin g the we apo n i mm ediate ly acc essible for useon another .” 77 F.3d at 401. Significa ntly , J ohnson involved neither § 924( e) nor 6 ac t i vat i ng the st atut ory m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence . T hi s a rgum enti s c l ea rl y a t odds w i th ouropi ni ons i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a l l , 77 F . 3d 398 ( 11t h C i r . 1996) a nd U n ite d S ta te s v . G ilb e r t, 1 3 8 F .3 d 1 3 7 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . In H al l , a def

endantw ho w as se nt ence d b y the di stri ctcourtas an “ ar m ed c a r e e rc r im in a l” a p p e a le d h is s e n te n c e a n d a r g u e d th a t h e s h o u ld n o t b e s u b je c t to an enhanced sent ence , si nce hi s pri or conv i ct i on for c ar ry i ng a c on ce al ed fi re ar m i n vi ol a t i on of

F l or i da l a w di d notc ons t i tut e a vi ol e ntf e l ony unde r§ 924( e ) ( 1) . 77 F . 3d a t401. W e r e

j e c t e d tha ta r gum e nta nd c onc l ude d tha t , s i nc e t he a c tof c a r r y in g a c o n c e a le d w e a p o n d id “p o s e a s e r io u s r is k o f p h y s ic a l in

ju r y ,” it f

e ll un der the defi ni t i on of “ vi ol entfe l on y” as se tforth i n § 92 4(e) (2). Id. M oreover, i n G i l be r t , 138 F . 3d 1371 ( 11th C i r . 1998) , w e e xt e nde d H a l l ’ s s c ope a nd concl ud ed t hatca rr yi ng a c on ce al ed w eapo n al so const i tut es a “ cr i m e of vi ol ence ” f orpurpos e s of

the e nha nc e d s e nt e nc i ng pr ovi s i ons of U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 2( 1) . 138 F . 3d a t1372. M a y s one t ’ s c ouns e l ha s c onc e de d tha tH a l l a nd G i l be r tdi s pos e of thi s a s pe c tof

hi s a ppe a l . R 3 a t4; A ppe l l a nt ’ s B r i e f a t8- 9. 5the SentencingGuidelines.

Maysonet also contends that the rationale of Hall and Gilbert has been overr uled by United St at es v. L eocal, wherethe Supreme Court c oncluded that a DUI conviction did not constitute a “ c ri m e o f v i o l e n c e ” un d e r

1 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 (b ) . 5 4 3 U . S . 1 , 9 - 1 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t . 3 7 7 , 3 8 2 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . In decidingwhat should constitute a “crime of violence” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), the Court in L e oc a l dre w a dis tin c tio n be tw e e n tho se ne g lig e nt a c ts c re atin gon ly a “po ssibil ity

that ha rm wi ll result from a p erson’ s conduct”and moreactive c onduct creatingthe risk of the “use of physical forc e ag ainst another .” 543 U.S. a t 10, 125 S. Ct. at 383. The Supreme Court reasone dth atthe former would not be suffic ient to constitute “crimes of violence,” but that the latter would meet that thre s h o l d . I d . C o n s equ ent l y , L eo ca lb o l s t er s o ur r u l i n g i n Ha l l , i nwh i chwe fo un d th atcarryi n g a conce aled we apon is “a ctive conduc t” that involves the “e x tra step of having th e we apon immediately

acc essible for use on another .” Hall, 77 F.3d at 401. Moreover , the statutory definition of “c rime of vi o l en ce ” b efore the Court in L eocal was different from both § 924(e) a nd the Se ntenc ingGuide lin e s, wh ic h th e Cou rt e xplic itly

re c ognize d. L e oc a l, 5 43 U. S. 1 , 1 0 n .7 , 1 25 S. Ct. 377, 383. 7 B. Fi f

t h a nd Si x t h A m e ndm e nt C o nt e nt i o ns M a y s one ta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d hi s r i ght s unde rthe F i f th a nd S i xth A m e ndm e nt s t o the C ons t i tut i on w he n i te nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on a fi nd i ng thathi s pri or conv i ct i on s w er e vi ol entfe l on i es , w hen t hatfa ctw as nei ther char ged i n t he i nform at i on no r a dm i t t ed by hi m . H e a rgues thatA pp re nd i v. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6, 12 0 S . C t . 23 48 (200 0), i n w hi ch t he C ou rthel d t hati tw as u n co n st i tu t i o n al t o rem o v e fro m t h e j u ry t h e assessm en to f an y fact s th ati n crease the pr e s c r i be d r a nge of

pe na l t i e s t o w hi c h a c r i m i na l de f e nda nti s e xpos e d, pr e ve nt e d the di s tr i c tc our tf r om c ons trui ng hi s pr i orc onvi c t i on a s a vi ol e ntf e l ony w i tho utfi rs tsubm i t t i ng thati ss ue t o t he j ury. “ W e r evi ew const i tut i on al c ha l l e nge s t o a s e nt e nc e de novo. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha u, 426 F . 3d 1318, 1321 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). In addi t i on , a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o cl as si fy a def endantas8

a n a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i n a l f o rp u rp o s e s o f

s e n t e n c i n g i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w th a twe r e v ie w d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . S p e a r s , 4 4 3 F .3 d 1 3 5 8 , 1 3 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) .

“ I n A l m e nda r e z - T or r e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224, 118 S . C t . 1219 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t n e e d n o t a lle g e in its i nd i ctm entand n ee d n otprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btt hata def endanthad pr i orc onvi c t i ons f

ora di s tr i c tc our tt o us e thos e c onvi c t i ons f orpurpos e s of enhanci ng a s ent ence . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M ar se i l l e, 37 7 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 57 (11t h C i r. 2004) ( c i t a t i on om i t t e d) . R e l y i ng on A l m e nda r e z - T or r e s , w e ha ve r e j e c t e d the arg u m en t s m ad e b y M ayso n etrel at i v e t o § 9 2 4 (e)(1 ). U n i t ed S t at es v . T h o m as, 242 F . 3d 1028, 1034- 35 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . S e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r e e r , 440 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 73 -74 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( concl ud i ng thata di stri ctcourtdo es no ter r i n con si deri ng pri or conv i ct i on s f or pu rposes of enhanci ng a s ent ence un der § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) ) . C on tra ry t o M ay sonet ’ s a rgum ent , A pp re nd i expres sl y c ar ved o utan e x c e p tio n f

o rp r io rc o n v ic tio n s , m a k in g c le a rth a t “ [ o] the rthan the f

ac t of a pr i or c onv i c t i on , any f

ac tthati ncre as es t he penal ty f or a c ri m e bey on d t he pres cr i bed s ta tu to r y m in im u m m u s t b e s u b m itte d to a ju r y , a n d p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t.” A p p r e n d i, 5 3 3 U .S . a t 4 9 0 , 1 2 0 S . C t. a t 2 3 6 2 - 6 3 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W e have repea t edl y i nd i ca t ed t hatthe rul e of A l m endarez -T orre s w as l ef tun di sturbed9

by A ppr e ndi a nd i t s pr oge ny . G r e e r , 440 F . 3d a t1274; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G i bs on, 434 F . 3d 1234, 1246 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S he l t on, 400 F . 3d 1325, 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . U n d e rA lm e n d a r e z - T o r r e s , it is c le a rth a t “n e ith e rth e F if th A m e ndm e ntnorthe S i xth A m e ndm e ntpr e ve nt [ s ] t he di s tr i c tc our tf r om f i ndi ng the fa ctof [def

endant ] ’ s pri or conv i ct i on s, or usi ng them ” t o enh ance hi s s ent ence u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .4 . G ib s o n , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 6 . F i n a l l y , Ma y s o n e ta s s e r t s th a t , e v e n i f Al m e n d a r e z - T o r r e s r e m a i n s g o o d l a w, the di s tr i c tc our tw a s onl y a uthor i z e d t o f i nd the f a c tof hi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons , but nott o c ha r a c t e r i z e the m a s vi ol e ntf e l oni e s orc r i m e s of

vi ol e nc e . W he the ra pr i or fel o n y co n v i ct i o n i s a v i o l en tfel o n y fo r p u rp o ses o f an en h an ced sen t en ce i s a que s t i on of

l a w tha tc a n be a ns w e r e d by the di s tr i c tc our t . G r e e r , 440 F . 3d a t1275; U n i t ed S t at es v . S earcy, 41 8 F . 3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 6 -9 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). A cco rd i n g l y, the di s tr i c tc our tw a s obl i ga t e d t o de t e r m i ne w he the rM a y s one t ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i ons w e r e vi ol e ntf

e l oni e s unde r§ 924( e ) ( 1) ; tha ti s s ue di d notne e d t o be s ubm i t t e d t o a j ur y . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notvi ol a t e M a y s one t ’ s F i f th orS i xth A m e ndm e nt r i ght s by e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d upon a f i ndi ng of t hr e e pr i orvi ol e ntf

e l ony conv i ct i on s, despi t e the fa ctthatthe vi ol entnature of the fe l on i es w as nei ther p r o v e n to a ju r y n o ra d m itte d b y h im . I I I . CONCL US I ON10

O n app ea l , M ay sonethas c hal l enged t he di stri ctcourt ’ s det er m i nat i on that hi s pri or conv i ct i on for c ar ry i ng a c on ce al ed fi re ar m w as a vi ol entfe l on y, and h as ar gu ed t hathi s F i fth and S i xt h A m endm entri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed by t hat det er m i nat i on . A s w e have expl ai ned, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oter r i n fi nd i ng three vi ol entfe l on y c on vi ct i on s und er§ 9 24 (e )( 1) and enh anci ng M ay sonet ’ s s ent ence § 4B 1. 4 o f the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. A cc ordi ng l y, M ay sonet ’ s s ent ence i m po se d b y th e d i stri ctco u rti s AF F I RME D.