FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 29, 2008 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. 08- 11089 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 2 2 0 - CR - CL S- J EO 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 S H A N N O N H I E T H R A M E Y , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 29, 2008) 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: A f te rp le a d in g g u ilty , S h a n n o n H ie th R a m e y ap p e a ls h is 1 8 0 - m o n thUn der t heAr me d Ca re e r C rimin al A c t ( “ AC CA ” ), 18 U. S.C. § 9 24 (e), a de fendant i s 1 subject to a mandatory

minimum15 year

sentenc e. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Additionally , a def endant’ s base of fenselevel under theadvisory sentenc ing guidelines is increa sed. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4( a)- (b).

2 s e nt e nc e f

orpos s e s s i on of

a m m uni t i on by a c onvi c t e d f e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 92 2(g)(1) and 92 4(e) . I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e de r a l gr a nd j ury i ndi c t e d R a m e y on tw o c ount s of know i ngl y pos s e s s i ng a m m u n itio n a f

te rh a v in g b e e n c o n v ic te d o f af e lo n y , in v io la tio n o f

§ 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . Th e i n d i c tme n ti d e n t i f

i e d Ra me y ’ s p r i o rf

e l o n y a s a n O c t o b e r6 , 1 9 9 7 A l ab a ma c o n v i c t i o n f

o rf i r s td e g r e e th e f

to f p r o p e r ty . R a m e y p l e d g u i l ty t o o n e o f th e two co u n t s. A cc ordi ng t o the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), R am ey had t en pri or conv i ct i on s, i ncl ud i ng , i nt eral i a, an A l abam a c on vi ct i on for s ec on d d egre e b u r g l a ry a n d tw o A l ab a ma c o n v i c t i o n s f o rth i r d - d e g r e e b u r g l a ry . Th e PSI reco m m en d ed th atR am ey b e cl assi fi ed as an arm ed career crim i n al d u e t o th ese three bu rgl ary c on vi ct i on s. T hu s, as an arm ed ca re ercr i m i nal , the P S I a ss i gn ed R am ey an offe nse l evel of 33 , pu rs uantt o U S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 4(b)(3)(B). A ft er 1 f ur the ra dj us tm e nt s w e r e m a de , the P S I ’ s t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l w a s 30. W i th a c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of V I , the P S I c a l c ul a t e d a n a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge of 1 6 8 to 2 1 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t.Be cause , under the ACCA, Ramey was subjec t to a mandatory minimum15-year

sentenc e, 2 Ramey ’s guideline ra

ng e of 168 to 2 1 0 m o nths became 180 to 210 months. S ee U .S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c )(2) . 3 R am ey di d n otdi sput e the exi st ence of the three A l abam a burgl ary conv i ct i on s. N or di d h e di sput e the fa ctual ac cura cy of the P S I. R ather, R am ey obj e c t e d t o hi s c l a s s i f

i c a t i on a s a a r m e d c a r e e rc r i m i na l on S i xth A m e ndm e nt g r o u n d s b e c a u s e h is p r io rb u r g la ry c o n v ic tio n s w e r e n o t c h a r g e d in h is in d ic tm e n t. R a m e y a l s o a r gue d tha thi s pr i orA l aba m a bur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons c oul d notbe c l a s s i f i e d a s “ vi ol e ntf

e l oni e s ” unde rthe A C C A w i thouti m pe r m i s s i bl e f a c t f i ndi ng b y th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t. A ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tove rrul e d R a m e y ’ s obj e c t i ons , a dopt e d the P S I’ s gui del i nes c al cul at i on s a nd det erm i ned t hatthe appl i cabl e a dv i sory gu i del i nes r ange w as 18 0 t o 2 10 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ctcourt 2 c onc l ude d tha tR a m e y ’ s A l aba m a bur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons qua l i f i e d a s “ vi ol e nt fe l on i es ” f

or pu rposes of the A C C A and i m po se d an 1 80 -m on th sent ence . R am ey appe a l e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , R a m e y a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e vi ol a t e s the S i xth A m e ndm e nt be c a us e hi s pr i orbur gl a ry c onvi c t i ons w e r e ne i the rc ha r ge d i n hi s i ndi c tm e ntnorWe reviewde novo a timely raised Sixth Amendment challeng e to an enhance d sentenc e. 3 United States v. Paz, 405 F.3d 946, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). 4 adm i tt ed i n h i s gui l ty pl ea . A s R am ey ac kn ow l edges, hi s a rgum enti s f orec l osed 3 by A l m e nda r e z - T orr e s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 224, 226- 27, 118 S . C t . 1219, 1222 ( 1998) . E ve n a f

t e rA ppr e ndi v. N e w J e r s e y , 530 U . S . 466, 120 S . C t . 2348 ( 2000) , a nd i t s pr oge ny B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U . S . 296, 124 S . C t . 2531 (200 4), and U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), w e a re b o u n d b y A lm e n d a r e z - T o rr e s u n til it is e x p lic itly o v e rru le d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t. U n ite d S ta te s v . D o w d , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S . C t. 33 5 (20 06 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. G re er , 44 0 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 73 -74 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). A ddi t i ona l l y , w e not e tha ta ts e nt e nc i ng the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notr e s ol ve a ny di s put e d f

a c t s r e l a t e d t o R a m e y ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i ons . R a m e y di d notdi s put e the fa ctual ac cura cy of the po rt i on s of the P S I thatl i st ed hi s pri or conv i ct i on s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S hel t on , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( expl ai ni ng that there i s no st atut ory B oo ker e rr or w here the defendant ’ s s ent ence w as enhanced b a s e d o n f

a c ts in th e P S I to w h ic h th e d e f e n d a n t d id n o t o b

je c t a t s e n te n c in g ) . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rrby e nha nc i ng R a m e y ’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on h i s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s. R am ey al so cont ends thathi s tw o A l abam a thi rd-degree bu rgl ary c onvi c t i ons c a nnotbe c l a s s i f i e d c a t e gor i c a l l y a s “ vi ol e ntf e l oni e s ” unde rtheRamey do e s n ot argue that

thedis tric t c ourt

c on sulte d im

prop e r s ourc e s o f evide nc ein 4 deter mining that his prior third-de gree burg lary convictions qualified f or purpose s of the ACCA and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b) (3)( B) . See Shepard v . Un i t ed S t ates, 544 U.S. 13, 24-26, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1262-63 (2005) (limiti ng the ty pes of evidenc e a district c ourt can consider to determin e w h ether a prior c onviction qualifies under the AC CA). Ramey does argue, however, that the district court improperly

foun d fa cts about his prior convic tions, i.e., whether his fe lonies wereviolent or were committed on different occ asions. Ramey ’s argument that Shepard ba rs judg e-made finding s about the fac tual nature of the prior convictions alre ady has been reje cted by this Court. S ee Greer, 440 F.3d at 1274-76 (explaining that it is “implicit in the Shepard r ule” that district cour

ts may make a findingas to the natureof the prior conviction). We “consider [ ] de novo whether a particula r conviction is a ‘violent felony ’ for purposes 5 of the ACCA.” United States v. Matthews, 466 F.3d 1271, 1273 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct . 286 (2007). 5 AC C A. 4 T he A C C A appl i es t o d ef endant s w ho have three pri or conv i ct i on s f or ei ther vi ol entfe l on i es or se ri ou s drug o ff ense s. 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (e )( 1). O ne of the cr i m es d e s ig n a te d a “v io le n t f

e lo n y ” u n d e rth e A C C A is b u r g la ry . I d . § 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( ii) . T o d et erm i ne w hether aconv i ct i on i s f or a “ vi ol entfe l on y, ” c ou rt s use a

“ ca t egori ca l approach, ” l oo ki ng on l y t o the “ fa ctof conv i ct i on and t he st atut ory d e f i n i t i o n o f th e p r i o ro f

f e n s e . ” Ta y l o rv . U n i t e d St a t e s , 4 9 5 U . S. 5 7 5 , 6 0 2 , 1 0 0 S. C t . 21 43 , 21 60 (199 0). In T ay l or v. U ni t ed S t at es , the S up re m e C ou rtconcl ud ed th a t“ a p e r s o n h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f b u r g l a ry f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

[ a n AC C A] e nha nc e m e nti f

he i s c onvi c t e d of

a ny c r i m e , r e ga r dl e s s of i t s e xa c tde f

i ni t i on or l a be l , ha vi ng the ba s i c e l e m e nt s of unl a w f ul orunpr i vi l e ge d e ntry i nt o, or re m ai ni ng i n, a bui l di ng or structure, w i th the i nt entt o com m i ta c ri m e. ” I d. at 599; 110 S . C t . a t2158. 56

T he A l abam a thi rd-degree bu rgl ary s t atut e und erw hi ch R am ey w as conv i ct ed st at es that“ [a ] pers on com m i t s the cr i m e of burgl ary i n the thi rd degree if h e k n o w in g ly e n te r s o rr e m a in s u n la w f u lly in a b u ild in g w ith in te n t to c o m m it a c r i m e the r e i n. ” A l a . C ode § 13A - 7- 7( a ) . T hi s l a ngua ge i s vi r tua l l y i de nt i c a l t o the T a y l orC our t ’ s de f

i ni t i on of bur gl a ry unde rthe A C C A . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude thatR am ey ’ s A l abam a thi rd-degree bu rgl ary c on vi ct i on s c on st i tut e vi ol entfe l on i es u n d e rth e AC C A. R a m e y a r gue s tha tthe A l aba m a S upr e m e C our ta nd c om m e nt a ry i n the A lab a m a C o d e in d ic a te s th a t A lab a m a in te rp r e ts its th ir d - d e g r e e b u r g la ry s ta tu te to in c lu d e o f

f e n s e s th a t a r e n o t “c r im e s o f v io le n c e ” a s d e f

in e d b y A lab a m a la w . H ow ever , as the S up re m e C ou rtexpl ai ned i n T ay l or, w hether the bu rgl ary c onvi c t i on i s a vi ol e ntf e l ony i s a que s t i on of

f e de r a l l a w a nd doe s not“ de pe nd on the defi ni t i on adop t ed by the S t at e of c on vi ct i on . ” 495 U . S . at59 0, 11 0 S . C t . at 21 54 . T hu s, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y c l as si fi ed R am ey ’ s thi rd-degree bu rgl ary co n v icti o n s a s v io len t felo n ies u n d erfe d er al law an d ap p li ed th e A C C A ’s se nt enci ng enhancem entt o R am ey ’ s a dv i sory gu i del i nes c al cul at i on s a nd se nt ence . AF F I RME D.