Court Opinion

ID: 9390843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 19:00:40.027421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:37.550713
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 19-10946    Document: 51-1     Date Filed: 04/28/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 19-10946
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       DOROTHY PEARL SMITH,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cr-00246-BJD-JBT-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 19-10946         Document: 51-1        Date Filed: 04/28/2023         Page: 2 of 3

       2                          Opinion of the Court                      19-10946

       Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Dorothy Smith appeals her 96-month sentence imposed af-
       ter pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
       violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Smith pleaded guilty
       to possessing a firearm after being convicted of at least one felony,
       including three convictions for aggravated assault, resulting in her
       classification as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career
       Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Smith asserts her prior
       Florida aggravated assault convictions do not qualify as violent fel-
       onies under the ACCA’s elements clause. Specifically, she con-
       tends the Florida aggravated assault statute criminalized reckless
       conduct, and thus the least culpable conduct criminalized was
       broader than the language of the ACCA’s elements clause. 1
              We recently rejected this argument in Somers v. United
       States, No. 19-11484, 2023 WL 3067033 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023).
       After the Supreme Court held in Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct.
       1817, 1829-30 n.6 (2021), “that offenses that can be committed with
       a mens rea of recklessness do not satisfy the elements clause of the

       1 The ACCA defines a “violent felony” as “any crime punishable by imprison-
       ment for a term exceeding one year . . . that . . . has as an element the use,
       attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of an-
       other[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). “This definition is often referred to as the
       ‘elements clause.’” Somers v. United States, No. 19-11484, 2023 WL 3067033,
       at *3 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023).
USCA11 Case: 19-10946       Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 04/28/2023       Page: 3 of 3

       19-10946                 Opinion of the Court                            3

       ACCA,” Somers, 2023 WL 3067033, at *4, this Court certified ques-
       tions to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the mens rea re-
       quired for a Florida aggravated assault conviction, id. at *2. The
       Florida Supreme Court held the Florida aggravated assault statute
       demands the specific intent to direct a threat at another person and
       therefore cannot be violated by a reckless act. Somers v. United
       States, 355 So. 3d 887, 891 (Fla. 2022). Based on the Florida Su-
       preme Court’s answer to our certified questions that aggravated
       assault under Florida law requires a mens rea of at least knowing
       conduct, we held aggravated assault under Florida law qualifies as
       an ACCA predicate offense under Borden. Somers, 2023 WL
       3067033, at *1.
              After review, 2 we affirm Smith’s sentence. Smith’s argu-
       ment is foreclosed by our precedent in Somers. The district court
       did not err in classifying Smith as an armed career criminal because
       Smith’s Florida aggravated assault convictions qualify as violent fel-
       onies.
              AFFIRMED.

       2 “We review de novo whether a defendant’s prior convictions qualify as vi-
       olent felonies under the ACCA.” United States v. Hill, 799 F.3d 1318, 1321
       (11th Cir. 2015).