Opinion ID: 3169250
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Madera-Madera Comports with Taylor

Text: Pineda-Goigochea next avers that, even if Moncrieffe did not supplant Madera-Madera, that decision is nevertheless not good law because it did not use the categorical approach required by the Supreme Court in Taylor, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S. Ct. 2143, and subsequent cases developing that approach. However, Madera-Madera did use, in essence, the categorical approach by performing an analysis of the elements of the Georgia drug trafficking statute. The reasoning, therefore, remains sound. Importantly, the reasoning in Madera-Madera has been used by this court in subsequent cases analyzing similar sentencing enhancement issues. For instance, in United States v. James, using the categorical approach, we determined that the defendant’s prior conviction under Florida state law for 5 Case: 15-12837 Date Filed: 01/13/2016 Page: 6 of 6 “trafficking in cocaine by possession of between 200 and 400 grams of cocaine,” was a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. See 430 F.3d 1150, 1151–52, 1154 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We compared the case to Madera-Madera and concluded that the reasoning therein was controlling. Id. at 1154–55.