Court Opinion

ID: 9554221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 14:00:44.196494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:22.711827
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11934    Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 08/08/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11934
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ARTHUR LASHERYL MORGAN,
       a.k.a. Tarrance Pace,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20542-CMA-1
USCA11 Case: 22-11934          Document: 28-1          Date Filed: 08/08/2023           Page: 2 of 3

       2                           Opinion of the Court                         22-11934

                                ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Arthur Morgan appeals his 42-month sentence for posses-
       sion of ammunition as a convicted felon, asserting the district court
       improperly calculated his base offense level based on a determina-
       tion that his prior Florida conviction for aggravated assault with a
       firearm was a crime of violence. The Government responds by
       moving for summary affirmance, contending this Court has held
       that Florida aggravated assault is a crime of violence.
               After review, 1 we grant the Government’s motion for sum-
       mary affirmance because it has met its burden of showing its posi-
       tion is clearly correct as a matter of law. See Groendyke Transp., Inc.
       v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) 2 (explaining summary
       disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties
       is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
       question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more fre-
       quently the case, the appeal is frivolous”). We recently held that
       Florida aggravated assault cannot be committed recklessly and thus

       1 We review de novo whether a defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as a crime

       of violence under the Guidelines. United States v. Palomino Garcia, 606 F.3d
       1317, 1326 (11th Cir. 2010).
       2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this

       Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
       handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 22-11934      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-11934               Opinion of the Court                          3

       qualifies as a violent felony under the elements clause of the ACCA.
       Somers v. United States, 66 F.4th 890, 894-96 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding
       Florida aggravated assault categorically qualifies as a violent felony
       under the ACCA’s elements clause because aggravated assault re-
       quires a mens rea of at least knowledge and not recklessness). Be-
       cause the elements clause in the ACCA’s definition of violent fel-
       ony is virtually identical to the elements clause in the definition of
       a crime of violence in the Guidelines, we also rely on Somers for the
       proposition that Florida aggravated assault is a crime of violence
       under the elements clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). See United States
       v. Ochoa, 941 F.3d 1074, 1107 (11th Cir. 2019) (stating because the
       elements clauses in the definitions of “crime of violence” in § 4B1.2
       and “violent felony” in the ACCA are “virtually identical,” we look
       to decisions applying the ACCA for guidance in considering
       whether an offense qualifies as a crime of violence under the
       Guidelines, and vice versa).
             Accordingly, because the Government’s position is clearly
       correct as a matter of law, we GRANT the Government’s motion
       for summary affirmance. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
              AFFIRMED.