Court Opinion

ID: 9367270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 15:00:31.06498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:58.792934
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 19-13732    Document: 43-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 19-13732
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       DENNIS PUGH,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 6:18-cr-00258-CEM-LRH-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 19-13732      Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 19-13732

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Dennis Pugh appeals his total sentence following his convic-
       tion on multiple counts relating to cocaine distribution. He argues
       that trafficking cocaine in violation of Florida Statute § 893.135
       does not qualify as a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Ca-
       reer Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2). For the following
       reasons, we affirm.
                                         I.
              In 2018, Pugh was indicted and charged with conspiracy to
       possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in
       violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 846, and possession with
       intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
       (b)(1)(C). Pugh plead not guilty to all counts.
              Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, the government filed an infor-
       mation and notice alleging that, under the charging statutes, Pugh
       was subject to an increased sentence due to his prior conviction in
       November 2001 for trafficking cocaine in violation of Florida Stat-
       ute § 893.135(1)(b). Pugh moved to strike the government’s infor-
       mation and notice, arguing that he was not subject to enhanced
       sanctions based on his prior conviction. Specifically, Pugh argued
       that § 893.135(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001), does not qualify as a “serious
       drug offense” under the ACCA because purchasing cocaine—one
       of the elements of the Florida statute—does not satisfy the ACCA’s
USCA11 Case: 19-13732      Document: 43-1     Date Filed: 01/31/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       21-12173               Opinion of the Court                         3

       definition. The district court denied Pugh’s motion to strike. His
       case proceeded to a bench trial, and he was found guilty on all
       counts. Pugh was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, fol-
       lowed by eight years of supervised release. He timely appealed.
                                        II.
             We review de novo whether a state conviction qualifies as a
       serious drug offense under the ACCA. United States v. White, 837
       F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2016).
              After the parties briefed their arguments on appeal, our
       court held Pugh’s case in abeyance until the Florida Supreme Court
       issued a decision answering our certified questions in United States
       v. Conage, 976 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020) (Conage I). Conage I
       presented the same issue as the one before us in Pugh’s appeal. The
       Florida Supreme Court has now answered our certified questions,
       see Conage v. United States, 346 So. 3d 594 (Fla. 2022) (Conage II),
       and we subsequently decided Conage’s case, see United States v.
       Conage, 50 F.4th 81 (11th Cir. 2022) (per curiam) (Conage III).
              In Conage III, we found the district court properly relied on
       the defendant’s prior conviction under § 893.135(1)(b), Fla. Stat., as
       a serious drug offense for purposes of the ACCA. Conage III, 50
       F.4th at 82. Following the Florida Supreme Court’s guidance and
       our decision in Conage III, we hold that Pugh’s conviction under §
       893.135, Fla. Stat., qualifies as a serious drug offense for purposes
       of the ACCA and therefore affirm his sentence.
             AFFIRMED.