United States v. Jonathan Robert Tarver
712 F. App'x 885
11th Cir.2017Background
- Jonathan Tarver pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)) and faced sentencing as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA).
- He had three predicate convictions: one aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and two Florida aggravated battery convictions under Fla. Stat. § 784.045(1)(a).
- The advisory Guidelines range was 188–235 months (offense level 31, CHC VI), but the district court varied slightly below the Guidelines and imposed the ACCA statutory minimum of 180 months (15 years).
- Tarver challenged the categorization of his two aggravated battery convictions as ACCA violent felonies and asserted Fifth and Sixth Amendment objections to the ACCA enhancement.
- He did not press procedural-sentencing errors or a substantive 3553(a) reasonableness showing on the record beyond asserting the enhancement was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tarver’s Florida aggravated battery convictions qualify as ACCA violent felonies under the elements clause | Tarver contended the aggravated battery convictions should not count as violent felonies (uncertainty about which statutory subsection applied) | Government relied on binding Eleventh Circuit precedent holding Florida aggravated battery (including the charged subsections) qualifies as a violent felony | Court held Turner controls; the aggravated battery convictions qualify as ACCA violent felonies, so challenge is foreclosed |
| Whether applying ACCA enhancement without jury finding violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments | Tarver argued ACCA enhancement infringed his constitutional rights (preserved for appeal) | Government invoked Almendarez-Torres and binding Supreme Court precedent permitting judicial factfinding of prior convictions for sentencing | Court rejected the claim as foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres and binding precedent |
| Whether the 180-month sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Tarver argued his sentence was unreasonable because it rested on an improper ACCA enhancement | Government noted the court varied downward but was constrained by the statutory minimum once ACCA predicates were established | Court held Tarver failed to show procedural error or substantive unreasonableness; mandatory minimum barred a sentence below 180 months |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI, 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013) (Florida aggravated battery qualifies as an ACCA violent felony under the elements clause)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (limits on ACCA’s residual clause; cited for context)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions need not be alleged or proved to a jury for sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for substantive-reasonableness review)