United States v. Charlie Warren Pendleton
665 F. App'x 836
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pendleton was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for possession of a firearm/ammunition and sentenced to 180 months under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).
- Early in the prosecution, defense counsel raised a competency concern; the district court ordered examination at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, MO, causing a transportation delay.
- The Speedy Trial Act 70-day clock was tolled by various exclusions; the court excluded the entire period during which Pendleton was found incompetent and being transported/examined.
- At sentencing the district court used two prior Florida convictions to qualify Pendleton as an armed career criminal: (1) threatening to discharge a destructive device (Fla. Stat. § 790.162) and (2) resisting an officer with violence.
- Pendleton appealed: (A) arguing the district court misapplied the Speedy Trial Act by excluding more than 10 days of transportation delay; (B) arguing the § 790.162 conviction is not an ACCA predicate; and (C) arguing his resisting-with-violence conviction was void because the sentencing judgment omitted counsel’s name.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on all grounds: no Speedy Trial Act violation, no plain error in treating the destructive-device threat as an ACCA predicate, and no clear error in the finding that Pendleton had counsel in the resisting conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Pendleton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial Act exclusion for transportation to competency exam | Days beyond 10 for transportation should not be excluded; § 3161(h)(1)(F)’s 10-day limit applies | Time during which defendant was incompetent is excludable under § 3161(h)(4), so the whole period is excluded | Affirmed: no violation; § 3161(h)(4) permits exclusion of entire incompetency period, even if transportation exceeded 10 days |
| § 790.162 conviction as ACCA predicate under enumerated "involves use of explosives" clause | The Florida statute conviction does not qualify as an ACCA enumerated offense or as an elements-clause violent felony | Using the modified categorical approach, Shepard documents support treating the conviction as a qualifying predicate; alternatively, resolution not plain error | Affirmed: no plain error; court did not clearly misapply ACCA—treating conviction as a predicate was permissible |
| Failure to raise ACCA objection at sentencing (plain-error standard) | Court plainly erred in counting the § 790.162 conviction as a predicate | Any error is not plain or does not seriously affect fairness; defendant cannot meet plain-error burden | Affirmed under plain-error review: either not plain or not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant relief |
| Validity of resisting-with-violence prior conviction (right to counsel) | Omission of appointed attorney’s name from state judgment means he lacked counsel and conviction is void under Gideon/Burgett | State record (appointment order, minutes, plea agreement, counsel’s fee motion) shows he had counsel throughout, including sentencing | Affirmed: district court’s factual finding that counsel represented Pendleton was not clearly erroneous; conviction stands as ACCA predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits records a court may consult when identifying the crime of conviction under the categorical/modified-categorical approaches)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explains categorical vs. modified categorical approaches and limits modified approach to divisible statutes)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (struck down ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (clarifies that only statutory alternatives that constitute elements allow use of the modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Harris, 376 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for Speedy Trial Act dismissal and review of factual findings)
- United States v. Elkins, 795 F.2d 919 (11th Cir. 1986) (rule that the day triggering the speedy-trial clock is excluded)
- United States v. Mangaroo, 504 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2007) (plain-error standard articulation)
- United States v. Humphrey, 164 F.3d 585 (11th Cir. 1999) (definition of plain error as "obvious" and "clear under current law")
- In re Egidi, 571 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2009) (issues raised for first time or not in initial brief are waived)
- United States v. Braun, 801 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2015) (use of Shepard documents under the modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Mangaroo, 504 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2007) (plain-error framework)