United States v. Jason Lee Dover
710 F. App'x 380
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jason Dover appealed his sentence enhanced under the Career Offender guideline for prior Florida drug-trafficking convictions involving methamphetamine.
- The guideline requires prior convictions to be "controlled-substance offenses," which include possession with intent to distribute (or distribution-related offenses).
- Dover argued Florida's drug-trafficking statute lacked an express intent-to-distribute element and criminalized mere purchase, so his prior nolo contendere pleas could not be treated as controlled-substance offenses for enhancement.
- The government relied on the statutory drug quantities and charging documents to show Dover’s prior convictions necessarily implicated distribution or possession with intent to distribute.
- The district court applied the career-offender enhancement; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida's drug-trafficking statute qualifies as a controlled-substance offense because it lacks an explicit intent-to-distribute element | Dover: statute lacks an element of intent to distribute, so prior convictions cannot be treated as controlled-substance offenses | Government: quantity thresholds and prior Eleventh Circuit precedent allow inference of intent to distribute | Court: Statute implies intent to distribute from quantity; prior convictions meet controlled-substance definition |
| Whether the court could use Shepard documents to rule out mere purchase given Dover’s nolo contendere pleas | Dover: plea admitted no facts, and statute includes purchase (which is not a controlled-substance offense), so enhancement cannot apply | Government: charging documents and other Shepard-authorized records charged sale/delivery/possession, not purchase, so purchase can be excluded | Court: Under the modified categorical approach, Shepard documents show convictions charged sale/delivery/possession, so enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. James, 430 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2005) (inferring intent to distribute from drug quantity under a state trafficking statute)
- United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) (following James; Descamps and Mathis did not abrogate James on inferring intent)
- United States v. Lipsey, 40 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 1994) (court must look to the elements of the offense, not underlying conduct)
- United States v. Palomino Garcia, 606 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2010) (Shepard documents permitted under the modified categorical approach)
- United States v. Shannon, 631 F.3d 1187 (11th Cir. 2011) (purchase under Florida statute is not a §4B1.2(b) controlled-substance offense; if the court cannot determine the statutorily-prohibited act, assume purchase)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits the documents a sentencing court may consult to determine the factual basis for a prior conviction)