United States v. Carl Schneider
681 F.3d 1273
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Schneider sold fifty oxycodone pills to a confidential informant and an undercover officer; apprehended after a surveillance-based stop.
- Firearms were found in Schneider's pickup: a .32 caliber handgun and a 9mm pistol, plus cash from the transaction.
- Schneider pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute oxycodone and to being a felon in possession of a firearm; the ACCA sentence enhancement (§924(e)) is at issue.
- Pre-sentence report described a 1980 Florida kidnapping/false imprisonment–later narrowed to false imprisonment; documents were sought to establish a precise factual basis for sentencing.
- District court could not locate a change-of-plea colloquy or transcript; court relied on Shepard-approved sources and ultimately applied a fifteen-year ACCA mandatory minimum.
- Schneider objected to the IRS/PSI factual basis and argued Florida false imprisonment is not categorically a violent felony; court granted finalization of the sentence after analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schneider admitted the facts in the PSR | Schneider did not admit the facts; objections targeted the legal conclusion | Schneider objected to the factual basis and documented context | No admissible admission found; proper basis for facts not established |
| Whether Florida false imprisonment is a violent felony under ACCA residual clause | Florida false imprisonment, even with secrecy, categorically qualifies as a violent felony | Florida false imprisonment lacks elements of force and is not categorically violent | Yes, Florida false imprisonment produces a serious potential risk of physical injury and fits the residual clause |
| How Begay/Sykes/Chitwood framework applies to Florida false imprisonment | Residual clause applies via risk assessment to Florida false imprisonment | Begay restricts residual clause to certain categories; Sykes and Chitwood guide analysis | Florida false imprisonment falls within the residual clause under the Chitwood reconciliation; not a strict liability/negligence case |
Key Cases Cited
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (U.S. 2008) (limits the residual clause to ‘purposeful, violent, and aggressive’ crimes in strict-liability/neglect contexts ( Begay ))
- Chitwood v. United States, 676 F.3d 971 (11th Cir. 2012) (adopts reconciliation: non-strict liability crimes may fit residual clause if they pose serious risk similar to enumerated crimes)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (U.S. 2011) (expands residual clause to cover risk from flight from law enforcement)
- Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (U.S. 2009) (inactivity vs. dangerous conduct; residual clause requires risk from the conduct)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (U.S. 2010) (defines force element in related battery context; distinguishes execution of force concepts)
- United States v. Billups, 536 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2008) (supports risk-based reasoning for false imprisonment under ACCA)
- Robinson v. State, 462 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (defines Florida ‘secretly’ kidnapping; analogizes to false imprisonment)