Case: 18-13773 Date Filed: 08/20/2019 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13773 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00003-MW-GRJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ARTHUR LARANGE LEE, JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (August 20, 2019) Before MARTIN, FAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-13773 Date Filed: 08/20/2019 Page: 2 of 8 Arthur Lee Jr. appeals his convictions for sex trafficking by force, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(1) and two counts of racketeering by prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). On appeal, he challenges the district court’s entry of judgments of convictions for two racketeering by prostitution offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1952, and the entry of a judgment of conviction for both a § 1952 violation and a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, on the grounds that doing so violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. As an initial matter, both of Lee’s challenges raise double jeopardy claims that were not preserved for appellate review, and Lee concedes this point. We typically review claims of double jeopardy de novo but review claims not properly raised before the district court for plain error. United States v. Bobb, 577 F.3d 1366, 1371 (11th Cir. 2009). To satisfy plain error, a defendant must show: “(1) there was an error in the district court proceedings; (2) the error was plain; (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights; and (4) the error “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citations omitted). “An error is not plain unless it is contrary to explicit statutory provisions or to on-point precedent in this Court or the Supreme Court.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 2009). The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects against, among other things, multiple punishments for the same offense. Brown v. Ohio, 2 Case: 18-13773 Date Filed: 08/20/2019 Page: 3 of 8 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977). However, that danger may not be present where the sentences for multiplicitous counts are run concurrently. See United States v. Pacchioli, 718 F.3d 1294, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013); United States v. Langford, 946 F.3d 798, 805-06 (11th Cir. 1991). While there are serious collateral consequences for receiving multiple convictions, where a defendant failed to object to the multiplicity of an indictment before trial, his challenge on appeal may be construed as a challenge to his sentence. See Bobb, 577 F.3d at 1372; Pacchioli, 718 F.3d at 1308. And where the arguably multiplicitous counts resulted in concurrent sentences, harmless error results. See Pacchioli, 718 F.3d at 1308. Separate statutory crimes need not have the same elements or require the same proof in order to be the same within the meaning of double jeopardy. Brown, 432 U.S. at 164. The established rule, as stated in Blockburger v. United States,1 is that, where ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals