Court Opinion

ID: 9408804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 19:01:07.150418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:46.953871
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 19-10948    Document: 65-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 19-10948
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ANTWOYN ANDERSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60204-WPD-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 19-10948         Document: 65-1         Date Filed: 07/13/2023          Page: 2 of 4

       2                          Opinion of the Court                        19-10948

                 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
                        OF THE UNITED STATES

       Before NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 1
       PER CURIAM:
               The Supreme Court vacated and remanded our September
       19, 2019, opinion aﬃrming the district court’s sentence of Ant-
       woyn Anderson to 235-months imprisonment for reconsideration
       in light of Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 686, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021).
       After remand, Anderson ﬁled a petition for initial en banc rehearing
       of the remanded Borden issue. By separate order, this Court has
       entered an order denying the Petition for Hearing En Banc, leaving
       this panel to decide this case.
               In our original opinion, we rejected Anderson’s argument
       that the district court erred when it used his prior conviction for
       Florida aggravated assault as a predicate violent felony under the
       Armed Career Criminals Act (“ACCA”) elements clause, 18 U.S.C.
       § 924(e). United States v. Anderson, 777 F. App’x. 482 (11th Cir. 2019).
       We relied on our earlier precedent that had already decided this is-
       sue. Id. at 483 (citing Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI, 709 F.3d 1328,
       1337-39 (11th Cir. 2013) abrogated on other grounds by United States v.
       Hill, 799 F.3d 1318, 1321 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015)).

       1 Although United States Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin was on the original
       panel in this case, she retired as an Article III Judge in September 2021. Accord-
       ingly, we decide this case by a quorum. See 11th Cir. R. 34–2.
USCA11 Case: 19-10948         Document: 65-1          Date Filed: 07/13/2023          Page: 3 of 4

       19-10948                   Opinion of the Court                                  3

               In Borden, the United States Supreme Court held that a crim-
       inal oﬀense that requires only a mens rea of recklessness cannot
       qualify as a “violent felony” under the ACCA. Borden, 593 U.S. at
       __, 141 S. Ct. at 1821–22. In light of this holding, this Court certi-
       ﬁed questions to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the mens rea
       required for a Florida aggravated assault conviction. Somers v.
       United States, 15 F.4th 1049 (2021). The Florida Supreme Court held
       the Florida’s aggravated assault statute demands the speciﬁc intent
       to direct a threat at another person and therefore cannot be vio-
       lated by a reckless act. Somers v. United States, 355 So. 3d 887, 891
       (Fla. 2022). Based on the Florida Supreme Court’s answer to our
       certiﬁed questions that aggravated assault under Florida law re-
       quires a mens rea of at least knowing conduct, we held aggravated
       assault under Florida law qualiﬁes as an ACCA predicate oﬀense
       under Borden. Somers v. United States, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 3067033,
       at *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023).
              Because it is clear that Florida’s aggravated assault convic-
       tion requires a mens rea of at least knowing conduct (i.e. more than
       reckless conduct), we hold that Anderson’s prior convictions under
       Florida’s aggravated assault statute qualify to enhance Anderson’s
       sentence under ACCA. This holding is consistent with the Su-
       preme Court’s decision in Borden.2

       2 In two F.R.A.P. 28(j) Citations of Supplemental Authorities filed after the
       remand of this case from the Supreme Court, Anderson attempts for the first
       time to raise a new issue based on the fact that the Supreme Court has granted
       certiorari in our Jackson decision. See United States v. Jackson, 55 F.4th 846, 853
       (11th Cir. 2022) (emphasis in original), cert. granted, ––– U.S. ––––, 2023 WL
USCA11 Case: 19-10948         Document: 65-1          Date Filed: 07/13/2023          Page: 4 of 4

       4                          Opinion of the Court                         19-10948

       AFFIRMED.

       3440568 (U.S. May 15, 2023). Generally, “our prudential rule” states “that is-
       sues not raised in a party’s initial brief are deemed abandoned and generally
       will not be considered by this Court.” See United States v. Levy, 416 F.3d 1273,
       1275 (11th Cir. 2005). We need not definitively decide that it is appropriate to
       apply our prudential rule in this case because Anderson acknowledges in his
       Rule 28(j) letter that our Jackson decision, 55 F.3d 846, forecloses his new claim,
       and also acknowledges that a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court does
       not change the law of this Circuit.