United States v. Leon Carter
704 F. App'x 808
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Leon Carter pled guilty to one count of illegal firearm possession and was classified as an Armed Career Criminal (ACCA) under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
- The ACCA classification was based on three prior Georgia convictions (aggravated assault; sale of a controlled substance; conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance).
- The district court sentenced Carter to 96 months, well below ACCA’s 180-month mandatory minimum. Neither party objected to the district court’s adverse ruling at trial, so the court of appeals reviewed for plain error.
- Carter argued his prior Georgia convictions did not qualify as ACCA predicates; he cited no controlling Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit authority supporting that view.
- The government appealed the 96-month sentence, arguing the district court had no legal basis to impose a sentence below the ACCA mandatory minimum.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the ACCA classification (no plain error) but vacated and remanded Carter’s 96-month sentence as plain error for being below the statutory minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter’s prior Georgia convictions qualify as ACCA predicate offenses | Carter: prior convictions (aggravated assault, drug sale, conspiracy) do not count as ACCA predicates | Government: prior convictions qualify as ACCA predicates | Court: No plain error in ACCA classification; Carter failed to cite controlling authority showing error |
| Whether a 96-month sentence beneath the 180-month ACCA minimum is permissible without statutory basis | Carter: urged court to decline plain-error correction, citing countervailing factors | Government: district court plainly erred by imposing sentence below ACCA minimum absent statutory basis | Court: Imposing ~half the statutory minimum is plain error; vacated sentence and remanded for re-sentencing |
| Standard of review for unpreserved sentencing error | Carter: sought discretionary refusal to correct under plain-error fourth prong | Government: plain-error review appropriate and should be corrected | Court: Applied plain-error test; precedent requires correction when sentence markedly below mandatory minimum |
| Whether systemic concerns (fairness, integrity) permit leaving the sentence intact | Carter: countervailing factors show no serious effect on fairness/integrity | Government: such a large downward variance undermines sentencing scheme | Court: Systemic concerns require correction; Clark precedent mandates vacatur for such large departures |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2005) (discusses plain-error review when no timely objection was made)
- United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (no plain error where there is no controlling precedent resolving the issue)
- United States v. Hall, 314 F.3d 565 (11th Cir. 2002) (sets out four-part plain-error test)
- United States v. Clark, 274 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2001) (vacated sentence significantly below statutory minimum as plain error)
- United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918 (11th Cir. 2009) (vacatur where sentence exceeded statutory maximum under plain-error review)
- United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2008) (reversed a sentence two-thirds of the mandatory minimum)