United States v. Carlos Antonio German
680 F. App'x 841
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Carlos German pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 70 months.
- The district court calculated the Guidelines range using a base offense level of 24 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2), which applies when the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions that are crimes of violence or controlled-substance offenses.
- German had a prior Florida conviction for burglary of a dwelling and at least one controlled-substance felony conviction.
- German argued that his Florida burglary conviction is not a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines because it is not an enumerated offense and the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.
- The district court indicated that even if the Guidelines calculation were erroneous, it would have imposed the same 70-month sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors and German’s extensive criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether German's Florida burglary of a dwelling counts as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines | German: it is not an enumerated offense and the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague | Gov't/District Ct: Florida burglary of a dwelling qualifies under the residual clause; prior precedent controls | The conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the residual clause; calculation of base level 24 was correct |
| Whether the residual clause of the Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague | German: residual clause is vague and cannot sustain enhancement | Gov't: Guidelines are advisory and vagueness challenge fails under binding precedent | Court: residual-clause vagueness challenge foreclosed by binding precedent; Guidelines' advisory nature means vagueness doctrine does not apply |
| Whether any error in guideline calculation was harmless | German: district court's reliance on level 24 was prejudicial and not harmless | Gov't: sentence is affirmable as harmless error because court stated it would impose same sentence and sentence is reasonable | Court: even if guideline error occurred, it was harmless; 70-month sentence was reasonable and would have been imposed anyway |
| Standard of review for whether a prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence | German: N/A (argues misclassification) | Gov't: N/A | Court: review is de novo for whether a prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015) (Florida burglary of a dwelling qualifies under the Guidelines' residual clause; Guidelines not unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Estrada, 777 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015) (de novo review applies to whether a prior conviction is a crime of violence)
- United States v. Hall, 714 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2013) (affirmance may be upheld for any reason supported by the record)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences)
- United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006) (harmless-error affirmance when court would have imposed same sentence and sentence is reasonable)