FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L2, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 46 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 02 8- CR-5 -RS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us EULADIO SANT IAGO, JR., Defen da nt -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 North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 2, 2 01 0) Befo re CARNES, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . ANDERSON, Circ ui t J ud ge : Thi s ca se pre se nt s the qu es ti on of wh ethe r a g ui lty pl ea fo ll owe d b y

a se nt en ce o f pr ob at io n a nda withh ol di ng of a dju di cat io n qua li fie s u nd er Fl or id a la w as a pr ed ic at e co nv ic ti on forth e p ur po se of e nh an ci ng a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e und erth e Arm edCare er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e). Defe nd an t Eu la di o

San ti ag o, J r. pl ead edgu il ty to p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a con vi ct edfel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). The g ov ern m en t ar gu edth atSan ti ag o h adth ree pr io r fel on y

co nv ic ti on s, m an da ti ng anen ha nc edsen te nc e und er the ACCA. At se nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t o ne of S an ti ag o’s p rio r of fen se s was no t a pr ed ic at e co nv ic ti onforen hanc in g h is sen te nc e und er the ACCA b ecau se San ti ag o pl ead edgu il ty to the off

en se , adju di cat io n was withh el d, an d S an ti ag o s uc ces sf ul ly co m pl et edhi s s en te nc e o f pr ob at io n b efo re co m mit ti ng th e in st an t o ffen se . W e h ol d t ha t a g ui lt y

pl ea fo ll owe d b y

a se nt en ce o f pr ob at io n a nda withh ol di ng of a dju di cat io n qua li fie s u nd er Fl or id a la w as apre di cat e co nv ic ti on fo r th e p ur

po se of e nh an ci ng a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e und er the ACCA. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt erredinfin di ng th atSan ti ag o d idno t h av e th ree qua li fy in g co nv ic ti on s u nd er the ACCA.

I. On Oct ob er 6 , 20 08 , Defen da ntEul ad io San ti ag o, J r. (“ San ti ag o” ) pl ead ed gu il ty to p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e le ss th anfif ty kil og ram s o f m ari

juan a, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(D), an d t o p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a co nv ic te d fe lo n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) . His P res en te nc e In ve st ig at io n 2Rep ort (“ PSR” ) li st edth ree p rio r fel on y dru g o ffen se s. OnOcto be r 22 , 20 01 , San ti ag o was sen te nc edinth e Oran ge Co un ty Circu itCo urt, Orl an do , Flo rid a, fo r po ss es si on of c oc ai ne with i nt en t t o s el l o r de li ve r. San ti ag o p le ad edgu il ty to the ch arg e. The c ou rt wi th he ldad jud ic at io n a ndsen te nc edSan ti ag o t o o ne da y injail , with c red itforon e d ay

of t im e se rv ed , andon e y ear o f pr ob at io n, wh ic h S an ti ag o su cces sf ul ly com pl et ed . On Aug us t 2 9, 2 00 5, Sa nt ia go was s en te nc edinth e Oran ge Co un ty Circu itCo urt, Orl an do , Flo rid a, fo r de li ve ry of c oc ai ne . San ti ag o pl ead edgu il ty to the ch arg e, an d t he co urt ad jud ic at edhi m

gu il ty. On Ma y

4, 20 06 , San ti ag o was sen te nc edinth e Sem in ol e Co un ty Circu itCo urt, Sa nf or d, Fl or id a, fo r po ss es si on of c oc ai ne with i nt en t t o s el l o r de li ve r. San ti ag o p le ad ed gu il ty to the ch arg e, an d t he co urt ad jud ic at edhi m

gu il ty. Bas edon th os e o ffen se s, the PSR re co m m en de d t ha t h e b e se nt en cedas a n arm edcare er cr im in al , whi chcarr ie s a m an da to ry fif te eny ear m in im

um sen te nc e, pu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e). San ti ag o o bjec te d, co nt en di ng th atth e 2 00 1 of fen se di d n otqu al ify as a p rio r co nv ic ti onun de r th e ACCA b ecau se he co m pl et edhi s p ro ba ti on an d was no t ad jud ic at edgu il ty by

th e se nt en ci ng co urt. 1 The go ve rn m en t co un te redth atinli gh t o f th is Co urt’s d eci si on s i n Un it edSta te s v . Santiag o conce des that the 2005 a nd 2006 offe nses qualify

as prior c onvictions for 1 purposes of the ACCA. 3Orel la ne s, 8 09 F.2d15 26 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ), Uni te d S ta te s v . Grin ki ewic z, 87 3 F .2d

25 3 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 9) (pe r cu ria m), an d Un it edSta te s v . Chubb uc k, 2 52 F.3d13 00 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) , San ti ag o’s g ui lt y pl ea t o the 20 01 off

en se co ns ti tu te d aqu al ifyin g co nv ic ti on forACCA p ur po se s, ev enif h e was ne ve r ad jud ic at edgu il ty. The di st ric t co urt fo un d t ho se cas es were n otco nt ro ll in g a ndhe ldth atth e 2 00 1 o ffen se di d n otco ns ti tu te a qu al ifyin g c on vi ct io n b ecau se ad jud ic at io n was withh el d a nd San ti ag o c om

pl et edhi s p ro ba ti on be fo re h e co m m it te d t he in st an t o ffen se s. The refo re, the di st ric t co urt d ecl in edto sen te nc e San ti ag o a s an arm edcare er cri m in al , andin st eadim

po se d asen te nc e o f 94 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The go ve rn m en t t im el y

ap pe al ed . II. Que st io ns of s ta tu to ry

in te rp ret at io n a re s ub

ject t o d e n ov o re vi ew. Uni te d St at es v. Co bi a, 41 F.3d14 73 , 14 75 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Ord in ari ly, a d efen da ntco nv ic te d o f be in g afel on inpo ss es si on of afir earm un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ) is subjec t t o aten y ear m ax im um sen te nc e. 18 U.S.C. 2 § 9 24 (a)( 2) . Whe n s uc h ade fen da ntals o “ ha s thr ee p rev io us co nv ic ti on s . . . fora vi ol en t fe lo ny or a s eri ou s dru g o ffen se . . . co m m it te d o n o ccas io ns di ffer en t fr om Section 922(g )(1) prohibits the possession of a fire arm by anyone “who has bee n 2 convicted in a

ny court of, a

crime punishable by

imprisonment for a ter

m exceedingone year .” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) ( 2000). 4on e an ot he r,” the ACCA im po se s a m an da to ry

fif te eny ear m in im

um sen te nc e. 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 1) (20 00 ). Whe th er an off en se co ns ti tu te s a v io le ntfel on y or a se rio us dru g o ffen se is a qu es ti on of f ed eral law. Uni te d S ta te s v . Jam es , 43 0 F .3d

3 11 50 , 11 54 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Fed eral law, h owe ve r, do es no t co nt ro l wh at co ns ti tu te s a c on vi ct io n fo r pu rp os es of t he ACCA. Ins te ad , “ [w]hatco ns ti tu te s a co nv ic ti on of s uc h acri m e sh al l b e d et erm in edinacco rd an ce wi th th e law of t he juri sd ic ti on inwhi chth e p ro ceed in gs were h el d.” 18 U.S.C. § 9 21 (a)( 20 ). Inpri orcas es , we hav e ad dr es se d t he qu es ti onof wh ethe r a g ui lty pl ea an d a withh ol di ng of a dju di cat io n c on st itut es a pr ed ic at e co nv ic ti on fora vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g ). In Un it edSta te s v . Orell an es , 80 9 F .2d15 26 , 15 27 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ), th e d efen da ntOrel la ne s was ch arg edwith re cei ptof afir earm by a co nv ic te d fe lo n a fte r pu rch as in g fi rearm s an d a m m un it io n o n s ev eral oc cas io ns be twee n J anuary

19 82 an d S ep te m

be r 19 85 . His s ta tu s as a co nv ic te d fe lo n was ba se d o n ane go ti at edgu il ty ple a to two fel on ie s i n F lo rid a st at e co urt i n J ul y 19 81 . Id . Orell an es arg ue d t ha t b ecau se ad jud ic at io n was withh el d fo ll owi ng hi s p le a, he was no t a c on vi ct edfel on for th e p ur po se of the fel on -in -p os se ss io n c ha rg e. Id . at 15 28 . After c on su lt in g F lo rid a la w, we hel d t ha t “ ‘the term “ co nv ic ti on ” m ean s We note that Santiag o does not dispute that the 2001 offe nse constitutes a “ serious drug 3 offe nse” f or purpose s of the ACCA. Thus, the only question befor e us is whether his guilty plea followed by

a sente nce of

probation and a

withholding of a djudication counts as a “ conviction.” 5de te rm in at io n o f gu il ty by ve rd ic t o f th e jury or b y

pl ea o f gu il ty, an d d oe s n ot requi re ad jud ic at io n b y

th e co urt.’” Id. (quo ti ng Sta te v. Gazd a, 25 7 S o. 2 d 2 42 , 24 3- 44 (Fl a. 19 71 )). InUni te d S ta te s v . Grin ki ewic z, 87 3 F .2d25 3, 2 54 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (p er cu ria m), th e d efen da ntals o a rg ue d t ha t b ecau se ad jud ic at io n was withh el d o n h is pri orfel on y off en se ina Fl or id a st at e co urt, h e was no t a c on vi ct ed fel on forth e p ur

po se of afel on -in -p os se ss io n c harg e und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Inres po ns e to th atarg um en t, we re affi rm edou r ho ld in g fr om Orel la ne s tha t u nd er Fl or id a la w a pe rs on is co ns id ereda co nv ic te d fe lo n a fte r a g ui lt y pl ea an d withh el d a dju di cat io n. Id . at 2 55 . The que st io n o f whe th er a g ui lt y pl ea an d withh el d a dju di cat io n i s a c on vi ct io n fo r pu rp os es of afel on -in -p os se ss io n c ha rg e cam e b efo re u s yet on ce m or e inUni te d S ta te s v . Chubb uc k, 2 52 F.3d13 00 (11 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Ther e, we reco gn iz edth e h ol di ng s o f Orel lane s an d Gri nk ie wicz , id . at 13 03 ; h owe ve r, we al so no te d t ha t o uran al y si s i n Ore ll an es m ay no t h av e fu ll y acco un te d fo r th e co nt ex t s pe ci fic na tu re o f th e te rm “ co nv ic ti on ” und er Fl or id a la w, id . at 1 30 4. Thus , we tu rn edto Flo rid a la w surro un di ng Flo rid a’s un la wfu l po ss es si on of afir earm

by a felo n s ta tu te , Fla . Sta t. An n. § 79 0.2 3. Al th ou gh th e cas e la w rai se d s om e co nc ernth at“pe rh ap s o urin te rp ret at io n o f Fl or id a la w was ei th er i n e rro r orha s s in ce ch an ge d,” we fo un d n o d efi ni ti ve au th or it y fro m th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt co nt rad ic ti ng Orel la ne s o r Grin ki ewic z. Id . at 1 30 5. 6Ope rat in g u nd er p la inerro r rev ie w, we hel d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t p la in ly

err wh enitacce pt edChub bu ck ’s gu il ty ple a to th e fel on -in -p os se ss io n c ha rg e. Id . at13 06 . Thi s ca se , ho wev er, d oe s n otpre se ntth e que st io n o f whe th er Sa nt ia go was

“ co nv ic te d” of t he 20 01 off en se forth e p ur

po se of s up po rti ng a ch arg e und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ) – i .e., for th e p ur po se of d et erm in in g wh ethe r San ti ag o i s a co nv ic te d fe lo n. Sa nt ia go co nc ed es th athi s 2 00 5 a nd20 06 co nv ic ti on s ar e pr ed ic at e co nv ic ti on s fo r a § 92 2( g) (1 ) vi ol at io n, am pl y est ab li sh in g S an ti ag o’s st atus as aco nv ic te d fe lo n. In de ed , San ti ag o p le ad edgu il ty to the in st an t ch arg e th athe po ss es se d afir earm invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g ), th e fel on -in po ss es si on st atut e. The que st io n i n t hi s ca se is in st eadwhet he r San ti ag o was

“ co nv ic te d” of t he 20 01 off en se su chth athi s s en te nc e m us t b e en ha nc edun de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e). Be cau se Orel la ne s, Gri nk ie wicz , andChub bu ckdi d n otad dr es s th e que st io n o f wha t co ns ti tu te s a c on vi ct io n fo r th e p ur po se of e nh an ci ng a se nt en ce u nd er the ACCA, th os e h ol di ng s d o n otco nt ro l the qu es ti on be fo re u s. 4 Fo ll owi ng th e d ire ct iv e o f § 9 21 (a)( 20 ), we th eref or e tu rnan ew to Flo rid a la w.

Be cause in this case we do not fac e the issue in Or ellanes, Grinkiewicz, and Chubbuck, 4 we ne ed not addr ess Santiag o’s argument that more re cent F lorida ca ses have erode d the holding of our c ases c oncer

ning the prec ise contours of F lorida law a s to what constitutes a convic tion for purposes of e stablishing a pe rson’s status as a convicted f

elon in the fe lon-in-possession statute. 7As we n ot edinChub bu ck , th e d efi ni ti onof “ co nv ic ti on ” und er Fl or id a la w

is flu idan d c on te xtsp eci fic . Chubb uc k, 2 52 F.3dat 1 30 4. Se e Rau le rs on v. St at e, 76 3 S o. 2 d 2 85 , 29 1 (F la . 20 00 ) (p er cu ria m) (“ [T]he te rm ‘ co nv ic ti on ’ as us edin Fl or id a la w has be ena ‘cham el eo n- li ke ’ te rm th atha s drawnit s m ean in g fr om th e pa rti cu la r st atut ory

co nt ex t i n wh ic h t he term is us ed .” (quo ti ng Sta te v. Kei rn , 72 0 So .2d10 85 , 10 86 (Fl a. 4t h DCA 1 99 8) )). Giv enth atth e d efi ni ti on of the term

“ co nv ic ti on ” is co nt ex t s pe ci fic , we m us t i ni ti al ly det erm in e th e ap pr op ria te Flo rid a la w con te xtforth is cas e. Becaus e 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e) i s a s en te nc e en ha nc em en t pr ov is io n, Un it edSta te s v . Sweet in g, 9 33 F.2d96 2, 9 67 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ), we be li ev e th e ap pr op ria te so ur ce o f la w inth is si tu at io n i s Fl or id a la w con cern in g se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts forhabi tu al fel on y off en de rs , Fla . Sta t. An n. § 77 5.0 84 . See Un it edSta te s v . Jef

fers on , 88 F.3d24 0, 2 43 -4 5 (3 d C ir. 1 99 6) (rel y in g o n Pen ns y lv an iaan d New J ers ey law co nc ern in g s en te nc in g e nh an cem en ts when de te rm in in g d efi ni ti on of “ co nv ic ti on ” fo r pu rp os e o f en ha nc in g d efen da nt ’s se nt en ce u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)); cf. Ch ub bu ck , 25 2 F .3dat 1 30 4 (s ug ge st in g th atlaw co nc ern in g F lo rid a’s un la wfu l p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a felo n s ta tu te is ap pr op ria te so ur ce fo r de fin it io n o f “ co nv ic ti on ” fo r pu rp os e o f a v io la ti on of t he fed eral fel on -in -p os se ss io n s ta tu te , 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 )). Acco rd in gl y , we tu rnto Flo rid a la w con cern in g s en te nc in g e nh an cem en ts for 8habi tu al fel on y off en de rs . The Fl or id a la w inth is reg ardis cle ar. Fo r th e p ur

po se s o f th is sec ti on , th e p la ci ng of ape rs on on [ 5 ] pr ob at io n o r co m

m un ity co nt ro l wi th ou t an ad

jud ic at io n o f gu il ty sh al l b e tr eat edas apri orco nv ic ti on . Fl a. St at . Ann . § 7 75 .08 4( 2) (W es t 2 00 5 & Supp . 20 10 ). Thu s, i t i s cl ear t ha t, i n th e ap pr op ria te co nt ex t o f Fl or id a’s tr eat m en t o f pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r pu rp os es of en ha nc in g t he sen te nc e o f a v io le ntcare er cr im in al or h ab itua l fe lo ny offen de r, Fl or id a la w wou ldtre ata pr io r gu il ty ple a fo ll owe d b y a se nt en ce o f pr ob at io n a s a pr io r co nv ic ti on witho utreg ardto whet he r orno t ad jud ic at io n was withh el d. InFran kl inv. St at e, 88 7 S o. 2 d 1 06 3, 1 06 8 (F la . 20 04 ), th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt d is ti ng ui sh edth e cu rren t v ers io n o f Fl a. St at . § 7 75 .08 4 fr om th e p rev io us ve rs io n u nd er wh ic h “ anoff en se forwhi chad

jud ic at io n o f gu il t h adbe enwithh el d wou ldno t h av e qua li fie d a s a p red ic at e fo r habi tu al off en de r se nt en ci ng un le ss th e subs eque ntoff

en se s [s ic ] pe nd in g fo r se nt en ci ng was c ommit te d wh il e th e of fen de r was on pro ba ti onor c omm un it y co nt ro l af

te r th e wit hh ol d o f ad jud ic at io n.” The co m

pa ris on dra wn b y

th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re in fo rces th e p la in m ean in g drawnfro m th e te xtof t he st atut e. The s ta tu te reco gn iz es no ex cep ti on forth e co m

pl et io n o f pr ob at io n b efo re the co m m is si on of t he off

en se for Section 775.084 is tit led: “Violent ca ree r criminals; habitual felony offe nders a

nd 5 habitual violent felony

offe nders; thre e-time violent fe lony offe nders; def

initions ; proce dure; enhanc ed pena lties or mandatory minimumprison terms.”

9whi chth e d efen da ntis to be sen te nc edas a n h ab itua l fe lo ny offen de r. Ind eed ,

San ti ag o c on ced es th atth e 2 00 1 o ffen se wou ldbe co un te d a s a c on vi ct io n fo r en ha nc em en t p ur

po se s u nd er Fl or id a la w. There fo re, we n ow h ol d t ha t a g ui lt y pl ea fo ll owe d b y

a se nt en ce o f pr ob at io n a nda withh ol di ng of a dju di cat io n co ns ti tu te s a c on vi ct io n u nd er Fl or id a la w forth e p ur po se of e nh an ci ng a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e), an d t ha t s uc ces sf ul co m pl et io n o f pr ob at io n o n t he Flo rid a o ffen se forwhi chad jud ic at io n was withh el d i s i m

m at eri al to whet he r th atoff en se canbe us edto en ha nc e a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e und er the ACCA. San ti ag o m ak es anin te res ti ng , andsupe rfi ci al ly app eal in g, ar gu m en t ag ai ns t th e fo reg oi ng in te rp ret at io n. Sa nt ia go no te s tha t 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e)(1 ) pr ov id es :

“ Inth e cas e o f a p ers on who vi ol at es § 9 22 (g ) of th is ti tl e an d h as th ree p rev io us co nv ic ti on s b y

an y co urt re ferr edto in§ 9 22 (g )(1 ) fo r a v io le ntfel on y or aser io us drug off en se ,” su chpe rs on sh al l re cei ve anen ha nc edsen te nc e in cl ud in g a m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o f fi fte eny ears . San ti ag o a rg ue s tha t the refe ren ce to “ co nv ic ti on s . . . referredto in§ 9 22 (g )(1 )” i nc or po rat es th e co nt ex t o f a § 92 2( g) (1 ) co nv ic ti on – n am el y , a co nv ic ti onth atdi squa li fie s a p ers on fro m po ss es si ng a fi rearm , andth ereb y m ak es itun la wfu l und er § 92 2( g) (1 ) fo r su cha

10pe rs on to po ss es s a f ire arm . W e rejectSan ti ag o’s i nt erp ret at io n. 6 W e co nc lu de th atSan ti ag o’s i nt erp ret at io n i s s tra in ed . Sect io n 9 24 (e) cl earl y co ns ti tu te s an en ha nc em en t co nt ex t. When§ 9 24 (e) u se s the ph ras e

“pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s . . . referredto in§ 9 22 (g )(1 ),” we d o n otbe li ev e Co ng res s in te nd edto in co rp or at e p ecu li ar s ta te law i n a n e nt ire ly diff eren t co nt ex t (i .e., th e di ffer en t co nt ex t o f whe th er a p rio r co nv ic ti on ren de rs a pe rs on a fel on fora fel on in -p os se ss io n o ffen se ). A m or e n atur al an d re as on ab le read in g o f th e st atut e wou ldin te rp retth e p hr as e – “ co nv ic ti on s . . . referredto in§ 9 22 (g )(1 )” – as in co rp or at in g m erel y

th e lang ua ge of § 92 2( g) (1 ) – “ co nv ic te d i n a ny cou rt, o f a cri m e p un is habl e b y

im pr is on m en t fo r a t erm

ex ceed in g o ne y ear” – wh ic h la ng ua ge intu rnin co rp or at es th e d efi ni ti on of t ho se pre ci se word s as setou t i n § 92 1( a)(2 0) . And , as n ot edab ov e, § 9 21 (a)( 20 ) lo ok s t o t he rel ev an t s ta te law t o de te rm in at e wha t co ns ti tu te s a c on vi ct io n, wh ic h s ta te law, i n t he cas e o f Fl or id a, va rie s wi th th e co nt ex t. No t o nl y is th is co ns tru ct io n o f § 9 24 (e) m or e n atur al gr amm at ic al ly, itco m

po rts with t he co m

m on sen se no ti on th atth e co nt ex t o f th e st at e la w to whi chwe lo okto asc ert ai n t he m ean in g o f th e “ th ree p rev io us Santiag o assumes that the phra se “r efe rre d to in § 922(g )(1) ” re fer s to “convictions” 6 rathe r than to the immediately prec edingterm “by

any court.” We need not dec ide that issue. I f the phra se modified “by

any court,” Santiag o’s argument could be r ejec ted summarily . Thus, we assume arguendo, only

for discussion of Santiag o’s argument, that the phra se “r efe rre d to in § 922(g )(1) ” modifies the wor d “convic tions.” 11co nv ic ti on s” in§ 9 24 (e) s ho ul d m at chth e co nt ex t o f § 9 24 (e) i ts el f – i .e., an

en ha nc em en t co nt ex t. Acco rd in gl y , we rejectSan ti ag o’s p refe rredin te rp ret at io n, an d h ol d t ha t the rel ev an t s ta te law t o wh ic h we s ho ul d l oo k fo r gu id an ce i n de te rm in in g wh atco ns ti tu te s a c on vi ct io n wi th res pe ctto th e 2 00 1 p rio r Fl or id a gu il ty ple a in th is cas e is th e Fl or id a la w inth e en ha nc em en t co nt ex t –i.e., the Fl or id a la w con cern in g e nh an cem en t fo r habi tu al fel on y off en de rs . As no te d ab ov e, th e Fl or id a h ab itua l fe lo ny offen de r la ws cl earl y pro vi de th atpl aci ng a pe rs on on pro ba ti on witho utanad jud ic at io n o f gu il t s ha ll be tre at edas apri or co nv ic ti on forpurp os es of e nh an ci ng th e se nt en ce o f a h ab itua l fe lo ny offen de r. Noton ly doe s o ur

ho ld in g i n t hi s re ga rdco m po rt wi th co m

m on sen se , itis co ns is te ntwith t he on ly feder al cir cu itco urt o pi ni on to ha ve ad dr es se d t he is su e. InUni te d S ta te s v . Jef

fers on , 88 F.3d24 0 (3 d C ir. 1 99 6) , th e Thi rdCir cu it co ns tru ed18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e) a s we d o t od ay . The i ss ue be fo re the co urt was whe th er a p rev io us Pen ns y lv an iagu il ty ple a an d apre vi ou s New J ers ey gu il ty ple a co ns ti tu te d “ co nv ic ti on s” forpu rp os es of § 92 4( e) ev enth ou gh th e ch arg ed of fen se th e se nt en ce fo r whi chwas b ei ng en ha nc edoc cu rredbe fo re s en te nc in g i n th e two pre vi ou s o ffen se s. Alt ho ug h t he de te rm in at io n o f whe th er the pri or of fen se co ns ti tu te d aco nv ic ti on di ffer edde pe nd in g upo n t he co nt ex t, the Thi rd Ci rcu itlo ok edto th e st at e la w inth e en ha nc em en t co nt ex t t o d et erm in e whe th er 12th e p rev io us gu il ty ple as co ns ti tu te d c on vi ct io ns forpurp os es of § 92 4( e). Id . at

24 3- 44 . W it h re sp ectto bo th pre vi ou s co nv ic ti on s, the st at e law inan en ha nc em en t co nt ex t wo ul d t reatth e g ui lt y pl eas as aco nv ic ti on ev enth ou gh se nt en ci ng ha d n oty etoc curred . Accor di ng ly, th e Thi rdCir cu itco un te d t ho se pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s an d e nh an cedth e se nt en ce fo r th e in st an t o ffen se purs ua ntto § 9 24 (e). Id. at24 5.

7 III. Loo ki ng to Flo rid a la w inth e ap pr op ria te en ha nc em en t co nt ex t, Sa nt ia go ’s gu il ty ple a fo ll owe d b y

a se nt en ce o f pr ob at io n a nda withh ol di ng of a dju di cat io n on th e 2 00 1 F lo rid a o ffen se co ns ti tu te s a c on vi ct io n fo r th e p ur po se of e nh an ci ng We do not think Unit ed States v. Dra y ton, 113 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 1997) (per c uriam), 7 indicates a

differ ent re sult. It is true that Dra y ton did involve the enhanc ement conte x t – i.e., the deter mination of whether

a prior c onviction qualified as a conviction for pur

poses of § 924(e ). It is also true that the opinion discussed United States v. Willi s, 106 F.3d 966 (11th Cir. 1997). In the context of determiningwhether Wil lis was a fe lon for purpose s of § 922(g ) (the f eder al fe lonin-possession statute), Will is held that a pre vious Florida plea of nolo contende re f

ollowed by

a withholding of a djudication was not a prior conviction re ndering Wil lis a felon. I d. at 970. In Dra y ton, the panel wa s addre ssing the de fenda nt’s argument that Wil lis meant that Dray ton’s prior F lorida nolo contende re ple as could not be c ounted as prior convictions. Dra

y ton, 113 F.3d at 1192. The pa

nel distinguished Willis beca use Dra y ton’s nolo pleas had be en followe d by adjudications of guilt. I d. at 1193. Thus “Willis [was] of no bene fit to [ Dra y ton] .” I d. We conclude that the pane l in Dray ton merely

reje cted Dr ay

ton’s argument based on Willis. The panel did not discuss the fa ct that Will is was dec ided in the context of determiningwhether Wil lis was a fe lon at all, and not in the diffe rent e nhance ment context of the Dray ton case . Appar ently , no argument was made to the Dra y ton panel that the c ontextmight be significant, or that the Florida law might vary with the context. W e ar e satisfied that Dray ton made no holding that § 924(e) deter

minations should be guided by the Florida law a s to what constitutes a conviction for pur

poses of re nderinga per son a fe lon, rather than the more appropriate enhanc ement conte x t matchingthe enha nceme nt context of § 924(e). 13hi s s en te nc e und er the ACCA. Ther efo re, i t was erro r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt n otto

co un t Sant ia go ’s 20 01 off en se as aqu al ifyin g c on vi ct io n fo r th e p ur po se of en ha nc in g h is sen te nc e p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). The sen te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt i s v acat ed , andth e cas e rem an de d fo r se nt en ci ng co ns is te ntwith th is op in io n. VACATED AN D REMANDED.

14