FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 18, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 97 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cr-0 00 34 -J ES-DNF-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us MARK EVERETT SHARP, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 8, 2 01 0) Befo re CARNES, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mark Ev eret t Sh arp ap pe al s h is sen te nc es of l ife im pr is on m en t fo r th ree co un ts of a rm edba nkrob be ry , 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2 11 3( a), 2 11 3( d) , us in g afir earmdu rin g acri m e o f vi ol en ce, § § 2 , 92 4( c), an d c arjack in g, i d. § § 2 , 21 19 (a). Sh arp

ch al le ng es th e en ha nc em en t o f hi s s en te nc es forcarjack in g, the fin di ng th athi s de m an d n ot es to ba nktel le rs co nt ai ne d t hr eat s t o u se a fi rearm , andth e en ha nc em en t o f hi s s en te nc es un de r th e “ th ree s tri ke s” st atut e, id . § 3 55 9( c)(1 ). W e aff irm. Sh arp was i nd ic te d fo r ei gh t cr im es rel at edto hi s ro bb ery of th ree b an ks in Octo be r 20 08 , Decem

be r 20 08 , andApri l 2 00 9. Aft er Sh arp en te redpl eas of n ot gu il ty, th e g ov ern m en t p ro vi de d n ot ic e o f it s i nt en ti onto reque stm an da to ry term s of li fe i m pr is on m en t fo r Sh arp ’s pri orco nv ic ti on s fo r ba nkrob be ry in19 85 an d 19 86 , id . § 3 55 9( c)(1 ). Sha rp lat er p le ad edgu il ty to fi ve cri m es : thr ee co un ts of ba nkrob be ry , us in g afir earm du rin g o ne rob be ry , andcarjack in g, i d. § § 2 , 92 4( c), 21 13 (a), 2 11 3( d) , 21 19 (a). The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort d es cri be d S harp ’s ban k ro bb eri es an d hi s cr im in al hi st ory . The rep ort s ta te d t ha t Sh arp co m m it te d c arjack in gs du rin g th e Oct ob er an d Dec em

be r 20 08 ba nkrob be rie s, an d t he rep ort ad de d t wo p oi nt s to th e o ffen se lev el s fo r th os e ro bb eri es . Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne § 2B 3.1 (b )(5 ) (No v. 2 00 1) . The rep ort d es cri be d h ow Sh arp he ldth e em pl oyees a t gu np oi nt , dem an de d tha t the y rel in qu is h t he ir k ey s an d i de nt ify the ir v eh ic le , and dr ov e away in tho se ve hi cl es whi le th e em pl oyees re m ai ne d i ns id e th e b an ks . The 2rep ort al so ass ig ne d thr ee p oi nt s t o S ha rp ’s cri m in al hi st ory forhi s 1 1 c on vi ct io ns fo r ba nkrob be ry

in19 86 . W ith ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 3 a nda cri min al hi st ory of II, th e rep ort p ro vi de d a n a dv is ory gu id el in e ran ge of 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. The rep ort s ta te d t ha t Sh arp was s ub ject t o m an da to ry

sen te nc es of li fe i m pr is on m en t fo r hi s ca rjack in g a ndba nkrob be ry off en se s an d aco ns ecu ti ve se nt en ce o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t fo r hi s fi rearm off en se . Id. § § 9 24 (c)( 1) (D)(i i), 35 59 (c)( 1) , 35 59 (c)( 2) (F)( i). Bo th th e g ov ern m en t an d S ha rp ob jecte d t o t he pre se nt en ce re po rt. Th e go ve rn m en t o bjec te d tha t the off en se lev el forSh arp ’s 20 09 rob be ry sh ou ldha ve be enin crea se d b y

two po in ts be cau se itals o i nv ol ve d acarjack in g. Sh arp ob jecte d tha t the carjack in g e nh an cem en t d idno t ap pl y to an y of t he rob be rie s be cau se he ha d n ottak ena ve hi cl e fro m th e “pr es en ce” o f anem

pl oyee of th e ba nk s. Sh arp ob

jecte d tha t h is ba nkrob be rie s i n 1 98 6 wer e n otser io us vi ol en t fel on ie s b ecau se th e d em an d n ot es he ga ve ba nktel le rs du rin g t he rob be rie s d id no t co nt ai n a“ th reatof u s[ in g] . . . a fi rearm ,” 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 9( c)(3 )(A)(i ). Sha rp al so ob jecte d tha t the en ha nc em en t o f hi s s en te nc es un de r th e “ th ree s tri ke s” st atut e v io la te d h is rig htto du e p ro ces s u nd er the Fif th an d S ix th Am en dm en ts to th e U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on be cau se hi s p rio r ba nkrob be rie s wer e n otall eg edinhi s in di ctm en t o r fo un d b y

a jury to b e se rio us vi ol en t fe lo ni es . The d is tri ctco urt

3ov erru le d S ha rp ’s ob jecti on s, b utsu st ai ne d t he ob jecti on by the go ve rn m en t ab ou t th e en ha nc em en t fo r car

jack in g fo r th e 2 00 9 ro bb ery. The di stric t co urt d idno t err by enh an ci ng Sh arp ’s off en se lev el s fo r carjac ki ng . A carjack in g o ccu rs when th ere i s a “ ta ki ng or a tt em pt edtak in g o f a m ot orve hi cl e fro m

th e p ers on or p res en ce o f an ot he r by forc e an d v io le nc e o r by in ti m id at io n.” U.S.S.G. § 2B 3.1 cmt n .1. Alt ho ug h t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es do no t d efi ne th e p hr as e “ fro m th e p res en ce o f an ot he r,” we i nt erp ret edth e sam e ph ras e in th e car

jack in g s tatu te , 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 9, t o re qu ire pro of th at“ th e v ic ti m . . . be su ffi ci en tl y

ne ar t o the ve hi cl e fo r itto be withi n re ach , in sp ect io n, o r co nt ro l an d, ab se ntth reator i nt im id at io n, t o b e ab le to m ai nt ai n c on tro l o f it .” Uni te d S tate s v . Kim

bl e, 17 8 F .3d11 63 , 11 68 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). W e h el d i n Kim bl e th attak in g the car k ey s o f a res taur an t em pl oyee du rin g a n a rm edrob be ry an d s te al in g the car p ark edou ts id e th e b ui ld in g c on st itut eda ta ki ng of t he car fro m th e p res en ce o f th e em

pl oyee. Id. Lik e th e car

jack in g i n Ki m

bl e, Sh arp st ol e ve hi cl es fro m

th e “pr es en ce” o f th e b an k t el le rs . The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err b y fin di ng th atSh arp ’s ban k ro bb eri es in 19 86 were s eri ou s v io le ntfel on ie s. A ba nkrob be ry is a se rio us vi ol en t fe lo ny, 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 9( c)(2 )(F) (i) , un le ss th e “ de fen da ntest ab li sh es by clearan d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce” t ha t h e d idno t thr eat ento us e a fi rearm or o th er d an ge ro us 4weap on du rin g the rob be ry , id . § 3 55 9( c)(3 )(A)(i ). Sha rp arg ue s tha t the de m an d

no te s h e g av e b an k t el le rs durin g t he rob be rie s d idno t co nt ai n ath reatbe cau se th e no te s s ta te d tha t h e p os se ss eda gu n, n otth athe in te nd edto us e it , bu t tha t arg um en t i s ab surd . Sharp ’s no te s d em an de d m on ey an d s ta te d t ha t h e h ada gu n, an d s om e o f th e n ot es warn edth e b an k t el le rs th at , if the y in cl ud eda dye pac k o r so un de d a n a larm , Sha rp wou ld“be ba ck .” Sh arp ’s no te s co m m un ic at edth e th reat th athe wou ldus e a fi rearm if the ba nktel le rs fai le d t o c om pl y with h is de m an ds . The di stric t co urt al so di d n oterr b y enha nc in g S ha rp ’s sen te nc es un de r th e

“ th ree s tri ke s” st atut e. Sh arp ackno wled ge s h is arg um en t i s fo recl os edby the de ci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt i n Al m en da rez- Torr es v. Un it edSta te s, 5 23 U.S. 22 4, 2 26 –2 7, 1 18 S. Ct. 1 21 9, 1 22 2 (1 99 8) . W e h av e h el d re pe at ed ly tha t Alm en da rez- Torr es rem ai ns th e la w un ti l the Supr em e Co urt o ve rru le s tha t de ci si on . See Un it edSta te s v . Pal om in o Gar ci a, 60 6 F .3d13 17 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e AFFIRMSh arp ’s sen te nc es .

5