Court Opinion

ID: 9915969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 15:01:10.994888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:23:17.653760
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12969    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 01/09/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12969
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       JERMAINE LEE WALKER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cr-00040-RH-MAF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12969      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 01/09/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12969

       Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jermaine Lee Walker appeals his 262-month prison sentence
       for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon. He
       argues the district court erred in concluding that three of his four
       prior felony convictions—two for aggravated battery with a deadly
       weapon and one each for arson and aggravated assault on a law
       enforcement officer—were qualifying violent felonies under the
       Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). For two reasons,
       we affirm.
                                          I.
               First, “a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other
       trial proceeding invited by that party.” United States v. Ross, 131 F.3d
       970, 988 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation and quotations omitted). This
       includes a party’s challenge to the district court’s ruling that his
       prior convictions are qualifying offenses under the Armed Career
       Criminal Act. See, e.g., United States v. Innocent, 977 F.3d 1077, 1084–
       85 (11th Cir. 2020).
              For example, in Innocent, the defendant argued his 2000 Flor-
       ida conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm was not a vio-
       lent felony. Id. We concluded the argument was “waived” be-
       cause, at his sentencing hearing, the defendant conceded that ag-
       gravated assault with a firearm was a crime of violence and he did
       qualify for a sentence under the Act. Id. at 1085. “The doctrine of
USCA11 Case: 22-12969      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12969                Opinion of the Court                         3

       invited error,” we held, “prevent[ed] us from considering the argu-
       ments [the defendant] expressly disclaimed before the district
       court.” Id. See also United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th
       Cir. 2006) (declining under invited error rule to review whether de-
       fendant’s term of supervised release was unlawful because defense
       counsel asked the district court to impose a term of supervised re-
       lease); United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1290 (11th Cir. 2003)
       (applying invited error doctrine where defense counsel “affirma-
       tively stipulated” to the admission of evidence); United States v. Sil-
       vestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (applying invited error
       doctrine where counsel stated that proposed jury instructions were
       “acceptable” and “covered all the bases”).
               Here, Walker invited any error the district court may have
       made in ruling he had three qualifying violent felony convictions
       under the Act. In his objections to the presentence investigation
       report, Walker admitted that, even without the aggravated assault
       conviction, “there remain[ed] three qualifying offenses.” And at
       the sentencing hearing, Walker again admitted that his arson con-
       viction was a qualifying felony. When the district court asked
       whether “three” of Walker’s “offenses [were] qualifying predicates,
       the two aggravated batteries and the arson,” Walker answered,
       “[y]es, sir, that’s correct.” He agreed he did “have the three” qual-
       ifying felonies. As in Innocent, the invited error doctrine “prevents
       us from considering” Walker’s “arguments”—that his prior convic-
       tions are not qualifying convictions—that he “expressly disclaimed
       before the district court.” See Innocent, 977 F.3d at 1085.
USCA11 Case: 22-12969      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 01/09/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12969

                                         II.
               Second, under our binding precedent, Walker had three
       qualifying violent felony convictions. His aggravated assault con-
       viction was a violent felony under the Act. See Somers v. United
       States, 66 F.4th 890, 896 (11th Cir. 2023) (“[W]e hold that aggravated
       assault under Florida law categorically qualifies as a ‘violent felony’
       under the ACCA’s elements clause.”). So that’s the first qualifying
       conviction. And his aggravated battery with a deadly weapon con-
       victions were violent felonies. See Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI
       (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328, 1341–42 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that ag-
       gravated battery, when committed with a deadly weapon, is a vio-
       lent felony under the elements clause of the Act), abrogated on other
       grounds by Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); In re Rogers,
       825 F.3d 1335, 1341 (11th Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have held that a convic-
       tion under Florida’s aggravated battery statute categorically quali-
       fies under the elements clause.”). So those are the second and third
       qualifying convictions. Because Walker had three prior violent fel-
       ony convictions, the district court did not err in sentencing him un-
       der the Act.
              AFFIRMED.