[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 12 72 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNos . 1: 10 -cv -2 22 31 -FAM ; 1: 09 -cr- 20 23 6- FAM-1 DEREK EASTON , Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 7, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, EDMONDSON, an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: DerekEast on ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s p ro se 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n t o v acat e. Inhi s s ect io n 2 25 5 m ot io n, Eas to n c la im edhi s t ria l

Case: 11-12722 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 1 of 5co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ch al le ng e ad equa te ly the us e o f a p rio r drug

co nv ic ti on to en ha nc e Eas to n’s s en te nc e u nd er the Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) . The d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d

1 reco m m en da ti on th atth e m ot io n b e d en ie d b utgra nt edEast on a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity

(“ COA”) o n h is en ha nc edsen te nc e as anarm edcare er cr im in al . No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . Inrev ie win g a§ 2 25 5 p ro ceed in g, we re vi ew th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear e rro r an d i ts leg al co nc lu si on s d e n ov o. Dev in e v . Uni te d S ta te s, 52 0 F .3d12 86 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . The ACCA re qu ire s t he co urt t o i m

po se a se nt en ce o f atlea st15 y ears if ade fen da ntpo ss es se s a f ire arm or amm un it io n a fte r 3 p rev io us co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol en t fe lo ni es or s eri ou s dru g of fen se s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ). East on ’s cri m in al hi st ory in cl ud eda 20 03 co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on with in te ntto sel l co cai ne withi n 1 ,00 0 fe etof asch oo l, i n v io la ti on of F la .Sta t.An n. § 8 93 .13 (1 )(a) . The p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ) de sc rib edth at 2 In his section 2255 motion, Easton also argued that his trial counse l was ineff ective f or 1 failingto file an a

ppeal on his beha lf despite his reque st to do so. At the evidentiary hearing, he withdrew this claim, howe ver. Easton orig inally

was c harg ed with possession with intent to sell cocaine w ithin 1,000 feet 2 of a sc hool, a first-de greefelony under F lorida law. H e eve ntually pleade d nolo contender e to a lesser c harg e of posse ssion with int ent to sell coca ine, a se cond-de gree felony under F lorida law. The judgment, howeve r, included a scrivene r’s e rror

ref ere ncingthe “1,000 f

eet f rom a school” 2 Case: 11-12722 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 2 of 5East on was arres te d fo r se ll in g c oc ai ne to anun de rco ve r po li ce o ffi cer. He l at er

pl ead edno lo co nt en de re t o o ne co un t o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o s el l a c on tro ll ed subs ta nc e. At h is ch an ge -o f-p le a h eari ng , th e st at e co urt i nd ic at edth atEast onwas en te rin g apl ea t o t he ch arg e o f “po ss es si on with i nt en t t o s el l,” asec on d- de gr ee fel on y . Alth ou gh he fil edot he r ob jecti on s t o t he PSI, Eas to n d idno t o bjec t t o t he in cl us io n o f hi s 2 00 3 d ru g c on vi ct io n a s a p red ic at e o ffen se un de r th e ACCA. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Ben ne tt , 47 2 F .3d82 5, 8 33 -3 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (no ti ng th atwhen a d efen da ntfai ls to ob

ject t o s ta te m en ts inth e PSI d es pi te th e o pp ortu ni ty to d o s o, he is de em edto have adm it te d t ho se fact s) . Duri ng hi s s en te nc in g h eari ng , East on al so di d n otfil e o bjec ti on s t o h is sen te nc e b ei ng en hanc edun de r th e ACCA. On ap pe al , East onarg ue s t ha t the Sh ep ardv. Un it edSta te s, 5 44 U.S. 13 , 12 5 S .Ct. 1 25 4, 1 61 L.Ed.2d20 5 (2 00 5) , do cu m en ts inhi s ca se were am bi gu ou s an d fa il edto in di cat e th e sp eci fic pa rt o f th e Fl or id a st atut e u nd erp in ni ng hi s co nv ic ti on . He m ai nt ai ns th at , bec au se hi s p le a was no t s up po rte d b y a factua l ba si s, h is co nv ic ti on co ul d h av e b een forth e le as t p ro hi bi te d a ctun de r th e st atut e -- p ur ch as in g aco nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e -- an d d idno t qua li fy as aser io us dru g of fen se . East on furth er ar gu es th atUni te d S ta te s v . Sha nn on , 63 1 F .3d11 87 (11 th part fr om the orig inal charg e. 3

Case: 11-12722 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 3 of 5Ci r. 20 11 ), m an da te s a f in di ng th athi s p rio r st at e co nv ic ti on was i m pr op erl y us ed to en ha nc e h is sen te nc e b ecau se th atcas e sh ou ldbe us edby anal og y to de te rm in e th atth e o ffen se of “ pu rch as e” i s n ota se rio us dru g o ffen se . Eato n’s ar gu m en ts are wi th ou t m eri t. His subs ta nt ia l re li an ce o n S ha nn on is in ap po si te be cau se ou r de ci si on inth atcas e was pre m is edon th e d is tri ctco urt’s in ab il it y to de du ce fr om

th e Sh ep arddo cu m en ts th e st atut or il y -p ro hi bi te d p artof th e st atut e und erp in ni ng th e d efen da nt ’s con vi ct io n. Se e Sh an no n, 6 31 F.3dat 11 89 -9 0 (s ta ti ng th ata vi ol at io n o f Fl or id a dru g l aw is no t a “ co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e of fen se ” und er the Gui de li ne s i f th e co nv ic ti on is forth e “pu rch as e” o f a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e wit h t he in te ntto di st rib ut e an d fu rth er n ot in g t ha t, i f th e reco rdis am

bi gu ou s, we wo ul d a ss um e th atth e co nv ic ti onin vo lv eda ch arg e fo r th e p ur ch as e o f drug s, tha t i s, the lea stpro hi bi te d a ct ). Inth is cas e, th e ch an ge -o f-p le a h eari ng , as wel l as East on ’s pet it io n t o e nt er a p le a o f no lo co nt en de re, u na m bi gu ou sl y in di cat es th atEast on was c on vi ct edof se co nd -d eg ree p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto sel l co cai ne . Non e o f th e p ert in en t do cu m en ts m ak e a ref

eren ce t o Eas to n’s b ei ng co nv ic te d o f a p ur ch as e o ffen se . In ad di ti on , East on ha s fa il edto pro vi de supp ort fo r hi s as se rti onth atth e “po ss es si on with i nt en t t o s el l” lan gu ag e u se d a t h is ch an ge -o f-p le a h eari ng was m erel y sh orth an d fo r hi s s ta tu te of c on vi ct io n, as op po se d t o acle ar i nd ic at orth athe was 4 Case: 11-12722 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 4 of 5co nv ic te d o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o s el l. Bec au se a se co nd -d eg ree f el on y is pu ni sh ab le by up t o 1 5 years’ im pr is on m en t und er Fl or id a la w, East on ’s co nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of c oc ai ne with i nt en t t o s el l co ns ti tu te s a s eri ou s dru g of fen se un de r th e ACCA. See FlaSta t. An n. § § 7 75 .08 2( 3) (c), 8 93 .13 (1 )(a) (1 98 7) ; 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(2 )(A)(i i). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth atEast on ’s 20 03 st at e co nv ic ti on was apro pe r pr ed ic at e o ffen se un de r th e ACCA; an d h is tri al co un se l co ul d n otha ve be enin effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ch al le ng e th atco nv ic ti on . AFFIR MED.

5 Case: 11-12722 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 5 of 5