United States v. Morris Dewayne Carroll, 19-12791

Morris Carroll appealed a 108-month sentence for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, challenging a guideline enhancement based on a prior Florida drug conviction (Fla. Stat. § 893.13).
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) increases the base offense level if the defendant has prior felony convictions for a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; the commentary defines "controlled substance offense" to cover offenses prohibiting manufacture, distribution, or possession with intent.
Carroll argued his § 893.13 conviction cannot qualify because the Florida statute requires no mens rea about the illicit nature of the substance.
The district court relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent (United States v. Smith) holding § 893.13(1) convictions are categorically controlled-substance offenses under the Guidelines; Carroll raised the issue for the first time on appeal (plain-error review applies).
The Supreme Court in Shular clarified the ACCA analysis but expressly reserved whether ACCA requires knowledge of illicit status; Eleventh Circuit panels later reaffirmed Smith as consistent with Shular.
Applying the prior-panel-precedent rule, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court, holding Smith controls and the enhancement was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prior conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13 qualifies as a "controlled substance offense" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) given § 893.13 lacks a mens rea element about illicit status	Carroll: § 893.13 requires no mens rea as to illicit nature, so it cannot categorically qualify	Government/District Court: Eleventh Circuit precedent (Smith) treats § 893.13(1) as a controlled-substance offense despite no mens rea requirement	Held: Affirmed — Smith is binding; § 893.13 qualifies and the guideline enhancement was proper
Standard of review for new argument raised on appeal	Carroll: (implicit) merits review appropriate	Government: plain-error review applies because issue raised for first time on appeal	Held: Court applied plain-error standard but relied on binding precedent to affirm

United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (held Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1) is a categorical controlled-substance offense under the Guidelines)
United States v. Smith, 983 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2020) (reaffirmed Smith post-Shular that § 893.13 convictions qualify under ACCA)
Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) (clarified ACCA analysis; reserved question whether ACCA requires knowledge of illicit status)
United States v. Bates, 960 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (explains de novo review for guideline-classification issues)
United States v. Lange, 862 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2017) (plain-error review applies when issue first raised on appeal)
United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (prior-panel-precedent rule: prior panel holdings bind subsequent panels)