Court Opinion

ID: 2820128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-24 16:01:32.859438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:42:23.670213
License: Public Domain

Case: 14-11300   Date Filed: 07/24/2015    Page: 1 of 2

                                                         [DO NOT PUBLISH]

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                   FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                     ________________________

                           No. 14-11300
                       Non-Argument Calendar
                     ________________________

              D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00012-MW-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARCUS CHATMAN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

                     ________________________

              Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Northern District of Florida
                    ________________________

                            (July 24, 2015)
               Case: 14-11300       Date Filed: 07/24/2015     Page: 2 of 2

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

       Marcus Chatman appeals his 180-month prison sentence, imposed after a

jury convicted him of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Chatman argues the district court erred by

sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18

U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a), based on his prior convictions for

possession with intent to sell cocaine, in violation of Florida Statutes § 893.13(1).

Chatman contends his prior § 893.13 convictions do not qualify as

ACCA-predicate “serious drug offense[s]” under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) because they

lack a mens rea requirement. 1 Chatman’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed

by United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1264, 1267–68 (11th Cir. 2014), which

held convictions for possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, in

violation of § 893.13(1), qualify as “serious drug offense[s]” under

§ 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). We therefore affirm.

       AFFIRMED.

       1
         We review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA “serious drug
offense.” United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2009).
                                             2