Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus CHATMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-24
Citations: 610 F. App'x 942
Docket Number: No. 14-11300
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus CHATMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 942–943

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus CHATMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-11300
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 24, 2015.
Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Stephen M. Kunz, As sistant U.S. Attorney, Herbert Stanley Lindsey, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Pamela C. Marsh, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
David Anthony Wilson, Law Offices of David A. Wilson, Ocala, FL, Marcus Chat-man, FCI Coleman Medium-Inmate Trust Fund, Coleman, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Chatman appeals his 180-month prison sentence, imposed after a jury convicted him of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Chatman argues the district court erred by sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.4(a), based on his prior convictions for possession with intent to sell cocaine, in violation of Florida Statutes § 893.13(1). Chatman contends his prior § 893.13 convictions do not qualify as ACCA-predicate "serious drug offense[s]" under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) because they lack a mem rea requirement. Chatman's sole argument on appeal is foreclosed by United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1264, 1267-68 (11th Cir.2014), which held convictions for possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, in violation of § 893.13(1), qualify as "serious drug offense[s]" under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
. We review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA "serious drug offense." United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir.2009).