Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martez COOK, a.k.a. Cuda, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-03
Citations: 624 F. App'x 723
Docket Number: No. 14-12921
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martez COOK, a.k.a. Cuda, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 723–723

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martez COOK, a.k.a. Cuda, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-12921
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 3, 2015.
Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Jay Lawrence Hoffer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Hermes Manuel Hernandez, H. Manuel Hernandez, PA, Longwood, FL, Martez Cook, FCI Coleman Medium-Inmate Legal Mail, Coleman, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Martez Cook appeals his 180-month sentence for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation- of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and 924(e). The district court found that Cook's prior conviction for fleeing and eluding a police officer, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.1935, qualified as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Cook objected, arguing that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. The court overruled that objection and sentenced him as a career criminal based on that conviction and two other uncontested prior convictions. This is his appeal.
In 2015, while Cook's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court invalidated the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2556-57, 2563, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Because of Johnson, Cook's fleeing and eluding conviction can serve as a predicate offense only if it qualifies as a violent felony under a different ACCA provision. It does not. The government agrees that Fla. Stat. § 316.1935(l)-(2) does not have "as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another," is not "burglary, arson, or extortion," and does not involve the "use of explosives." 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Because the ACCA applies only if the defendant has three qualifying offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), Cook is one offense short of that requirement. For that reason, we vacate his sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
. He also contends that his mandatory minimum sentence under the ACCA-is unconstitutional in light of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because the ACCA does not apply, we need not consider that contention.