643 F. App'x 905
11th Cir.2016Background
- Casamayor pleaded guilty to five counts arising from a planned armed robbery of a marijuana grow house, a marijuana distribution conspiracy, and related firearms offenses; he coordinated recruitment and transported a loaded shotgun and other items.
- PSI grouped four counts and initially applied the §2K2.1 firearms guideline, but Casamayor was treated as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1, which produced a preset Guidelines range of 262–327 months (inclusive of a mandatory consecutive 60 months for §924(c)).
- The PSI attributed two prior Florida convictions (2008 fleeing/attempting to elude at high speed; 2012 strong-arm robbery and aggravated battery) as crimes of violence supporting career-offender status and also asserted ACCA exposure for the §922(g) count.
- At sentencing the district court accepted career-offender / armed-career-criminal treatment, declined to resolve two Guidelines objections (stolen firearm enhancement and managerial-role enhancement) because the career-offender range controlled, and imposed 202 months concurrent on Counts 1, 3, and 5; 60 months concurrent on Count 2; and 60 months consecutive on Count 6 (total 262 months).
- On appeal the court: affirmed most rulings; held the district court permissibly declined to rule on the two Guidelines adjustments; rejected a Sixth Amendment challenge to using prior convictions for sentence enhancement; but vacated Count 3’s sentence and remanded because the district court did not specify which prior convictions supported the ACCA enhancement after Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by not resolving two offense-level adjustments (stolen firearm under §2K2.1(b)(4)(A); managerial role under §3B1.1(c)) | Casamayor argued the increases were improper and must be resolved | Government argued ruling was unnecessary because career-offender range controlled sentence | Affirmed: district court properly declined to rule under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) because career-offender table preset the range and the issues would not affect sentencing |
| Whether using prior convictions to apply ACCA enhancement violated Fifth/Sixth Amendment (must be charged/proved to jury) | Casamayor argued ACCA predicates must be charged and proved beyond reasonable doubt (invoking Alleyne) | Government relied on Almendarez-Torres/Apprendi precedent allowing use of prior convictions for sentencing enhancements | Rejected: Almendarez-Torres remains binding; no plain error shown; enhancement via prior convictions permissible |
| Whether the 2008 Florida fleeing-at-high-speed conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate after Johnson (residual clause struck down) | Casamayor argued the conviction no longer qualifies because Johnson invalidated the residual clause | Government argued other priors still qualify under the elements or enumerated clauses | Vacated and remanded on Count 3: district court failed to identify which priors it relied on for ACCA; court must determine whether other priors qualify under non-residual clauses on remand |
| Whether the 2008 fleeing conviction may be removed from career-offender status after Johnson | Casamayor argued the Guidelines’ residual clause is vague per Johnson | Government relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent upholding §4B1.2 residual clause (Matchett) | Affirmed: Eleventh Circuit precedent (Matchett, Harris) treats Guidelines’ residual clause as not void for vagueness; district court didn’t err treating Casamayor as career offender |
Key Cases Cited
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Sup. Ct.) (prior convictions may be used to enhance sentence without jury finding)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Sup. Ct.) (scope of jury-trial rule; declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (Sup. Ct.) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury; did not overrule Almendarez-Torres)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (Sup. Ct.) (ACCA residual clause is unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir.) (Guidelines’ residual clause not void for vagueness for advisory Guidelines)
- Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (vehicular flight previously treated as violent felony under ACCA prior to Johnson)