Case: 18-14868 Date Filed: 08/26/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-14868 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cr-00118-SCB-SPF-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARL GOLDEN, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (August 26, 2019) Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-14868 Date Filed: 08/26/2019 Page: 2 of 6 Carl Golden appeals his 180-month enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). While he recognizes that his arguments are foreclosed by our precedent, Golden nevertheless asserts (1) that his prior convictions for robbery under Florida Statute § 812.13 and aggravated assault under Florida Statute § 784.021 don’t constitute “violent felonies” under the ACCA, and (2) that his convictions for delivery and sale of controlled substances under Florida Statute § 893.13 don’t constitute “serious drug offenses” under the ACCA. After careful review, we affirm. I As to his “violent felony” convictions, Golden contends (1) that the Florida robbery statute at the time of his conviction—which was prior to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Robinson v. State, 692 So. 2d 883, 886 (Fla. 1997) (holding that robbery required resistance and overpowering of a victim)—doesn’t meet the minimal amount of force required to constitute a “violent felony” under the ACCA, and (2) that the Florida aggravated-assault statute allows for a lesser mens rea—i.e., recklessness—than is required under the ACCA. We review de novo whether a prior conviction is a violent felony under the ACCA. United States v. Seabrooks, 839 F.3d 1326, 1338 (11th Cir. 2016). 2 Case: 18-14868 Date Filed: 08/26/2019 Page: 3 of 6 Unfortunately for Golden, both of his “violent felony” arguments are directly foreclosed by our precedent. We have held that a pre-Robinson felony conviction for robbery under Florida Statute § 812.13(1) constitutes a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause. United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 941 (11th Cir. 2016). As the Fritts Court explained, rather than announcing a new rule of law, Robinson simply stated what the statute “always meant”—i.e., that the Florida robbery statute never included a theft by mere snatching, but rather had always required the use of force. Id. at 942–43. The Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling v. United States—which considered pre- and post-Robinson periods together in concluding that Florida robbery qualifies as a “violent felony”— supports this conclusion. 139 S. Ct. 544, 550–55 (2019). We have also held that an aggravated assault conviction under Florida Statute § 784.021 constitutes a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause. Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328, 1337–39 (11th Cir. 2013). Moreover, we have specifically rejected the argument that Florida’s aggravated assault statute fails as a predicate offense under the ACCA because it could be accomplished with a mens rea of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals