United States v. Isaac Seabrooks
839 F.3d 1326
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In July 2014 police arrested Isaac Seabrooks and co-defendant Nigel Butler after a park ranger watched Butler break into Jose Cruz’s parked truck and remove items; officers recovered three loaded firearms from the stolen Cadillac Butler was driving. Seabrooks was a front-seat passenger.
- Seabrooks made post-arrest statements admitting he touched a small gun, that Butler handed him a black pouch containing a semiautomatic pistol, and that he placed firearms in the Cadillac’s center console; he claimed he stayed in the car and did not exit during the theft.
- A federal grand jury indicted both men on (1) being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Count 1) and (2) possessing a stolen firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(j), Count 2). Butler pleaded guilty; Seabrooks went to trial and was convicted on both counts.
- The district court instructed the jury on aiding and abetting over Seabrooks’s objection; the jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts.
- At sentencing the Presentence Report treated Seabrooks as an Armed Career Criminal under the ACCA (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) based on six prior Florida armed-robbery convictions from 1995 (convicted in 1997), producing a 15-year mandatory minimum and an advisory Guidelines range; the court sentenced him to 188 months.
- On appeal Seabrooks challenged (A) the propriety of the aiding-and-abetting instruction (including a Rosemond-based advance-knowledge argument) and (B) his ACCA designation (whether his Florida armed-robbery predicates qualify as ACCA “violent felonies” under the elements clause).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Seabrooks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of aiding-and-abetting jury instruction for § 922(j) (possession of stolen firearm) | Evidence (admissions, receipt and stowing of guns, presence during theft) supports instruction; aiding-and-abetting is permissible if evidence warrants it | Instruction improper because evidence did not show active participation; on appeal also argued Rosemond requires advance knowledge of gun-theft plan | Affirmed: instruction proper; evidence supported that Seabrooks intentionally aided Butler; no reversible error |
| Applicability of Rosemond advance-knowledge rule to § 922(j) aiding-and-abetting | Rosemond’s advance-knowledge rule does not apply to § 922(j) because § 922(j) is not a compound offense like § 924(c) | Rosemond requires advance knowledge that confederate would possess/use firearms before aiding | No plain error even assuming Rosemond applied: evidence showed Seabrooks had (or acquiesced to) knowledge and did not withdraw, so instruction would be supported |
| Aiding-and-abetting liability for § 922(g) (felon-in-possession) — knowledge of possession | Government: possession is a single act; Seabrooks’s receipt/stowing of guns and admissions support intent to aid possession | Seabrooks: Rosemond requires advance knowledge that Butler would possess firearms and be a felon | Affirmed: evidence supported intent to aid Butler’s possession; even if Rosemond applied, knowledge sufficient to permit aiding-and-abetting instruction |
| ACCA predicate question — do Florida armed-robbery convictions qualify as "violent felonies" under the elements clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)? | Government: Eleventh Circuit precedent (Dowd, Lockley) holds Florida robbery/armed robbery has as an element use/threatened use of physical force and thus qualifies | Seabrooks: argues precedents are infirm (invokes Curtis Johnson, Mathis/Descamps, and pre-1999 "sudden snatching" realities) and that his prior convictions do not categorically involve force sufficient for ACCA elements clause | Affirmed: all panel members hold Seabrooks qualifies as an ACCA offender; Lockley (and binding prior-panel rule re Dowd) controls; convictions qualify under the elements clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (aiding-and-abetting in § 924(c) requires advance knowledge of confederate’s gun use in certain circumstances)
- Lockley v. United States, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011) (Florida robbery under § 812.13(1) categorically satisfies the elements-clause definition of a crime of violence)
- Dowd v. United States, 451 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2006) (Florida armed robbery is a violent felony under ACCA elements clause)
- Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (interpreting "physical force" in ACCA elements clause)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (categorical and modified-categorical approaches for predicate-offense analysis)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (divisibility and how to apply the categorical approach)
- Welch v. United States, 683 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2012) (analyzed Florida robbery under the residual clause; discussed pre- and post-1999 "sudden snatching")
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (presumption that conviction rests on the least culpable conduct when doing categorical analysis)