Court Opinion

ID: 9369872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 21:00:29.581789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:17.888331
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-12695    Document: 47-1     Date Filed: 02/09/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-12695
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       DEMONTE EASLEY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-5
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12695      Document: 47-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 21-12695

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Sheryl Lowenthal, appointed counsel for Demonte Easley
       on direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further rep-
       resentation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
       California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the en-
       tire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of
       the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the en-
       tire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, we grant counsel’s
       motion to withdraw and affirm Easley’s convictions and sentences.
               In coming to this conclusion, we have considered Mr. Ea-
       sley’s response to his counsel’s motion to withdraw. The problem
       for Mr. Easley is that we have held that possession of a controlled
       substance with intent to distribute in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13
       constitutes a “serious drug offense” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)
       (defining a “serious drug offense” in part as an offense under state
       law “involving manufacturing, distributing, or possession with in-
       tent to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance”). See
       United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (11th Cir. 2014);
       United States v. Jackson, 55 F.4th 846, 861-62 (11th Cir. 2022). And,
       as we noted in Jackson, the Supreme Court has affirmed one of our
       decisions holding that a conviction under § 893.13 is a “serious drug
       offense.” See Shular v. United States, 140 S.Ct. 779, 784, 787 (2020).
       Mr. Easley’s prior convictions under § 893.13 for distribution of
       crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship and for
USCA11 Case: 21-12695       Document: 47-1       Date Filed: 02/09/2023      Page: 3 of 3

       21-12695                 Opinion of the Court                           3

       possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute therefore con-
       stituted ACCA predicate offenses.
               Although we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm Ea-
       sley’s convictions and sentences, there is a clerical error in his final
       judgment of conviction. We may sua sponte raise the issue of a
       clerical error in a judgment and remand with instructions to correct
       the error. See United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir.
       2006). The superseding indictment and Easley’s plea agreement
       state in Count 1 that Easley violated 21 U.S.C. § 846 by conspiring
       to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. How-
       ever, the district court lists 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii),
       and 841(b)(1)(B)(i), as the statutes of conviction on Count 1. Sec-
       tion 846 punishes conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
       controlled substances, and the district court’s omission of a citation
       to it appears to be a clerical error. Thus, we remand to the district
       court with instructions to amend the judgment of conviction to
       correct the clerical error.
              Motion to withdraw GRANTED, convictions and sentences
       AFFIRMED, and REMANDED for the limited purpose of correct-
       ing the judgment.