United States v. Nakey Demetruis White
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17243
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after police found a stolen gun in a traffic stop.
- Presentence Report recommended Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement based on three prior Alabama convictions: second-degree robbery, first-degree possession of marijuana (for other than personal use), and trafficking in cocaine (possession of ≥28 grams).
- District court allowed a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility but rejected the defendant’s objections to ACCA predicates, applying the 15-year mandatory minimum.
- On appeal, defendant challenged whether the two drug convictions qualify as ACCA “serious drug offense[s],” arguing Alabama statutes do not necessarily require manufacturing, distributing, or possession with intent to distribute.
- Eleventh Circuit applied the categorical and (where relevant) modified categorical approaches and relied on binding Eleventh Circuit precedent holding these Alabama offenses qualify as ACCA predicates.
- Court affirmed the sentence, concluding Robinson and James control and Descamps (and other Supreme Court decisions) did not abrogate those precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ala. Code § 13A-12-213(a)(1) (1st‑degree possession of marijuana for other than personal use) is a "serious drug offense" under the ACCA | Government: conviction necessarily involves intent to distribute and thus fits ACCA definition | Defendant: statute does not expressly require manufacturing, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute; could cover joint possession or administering | Held: Affirmed — Robinson controls; possession for other than personal use necessarily implies intent to distribute and qualifies under ACCA |
| Whether Ala. Code § 13A-12-231(2) (trafficking by possession of ≥28g cocaine) is a "serious drug offense" under the ACCA | Government: trafficking-by-possession infers intent to distribute given quantity and Alabama’s three-tier scheme; fits ACCA’s expansive “involving” language | Defendant: conviction can be based on mere possession of quantity without element of intent to distribute, so it should not qualify | Held: Affirmed — Eleventh Circuit follows James and Madera-Madera: trafficking-by-possession of the specified quantity constitutes a serious drug offense under the ACCA |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (possession of marijuana for other than personal use under Ala. § 13A-12-213(a)(1) implies intent to distribute and qualifies as an ACCA predicate)
- United States v. James, 430 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2005) (trafficking-by-possession statutes that require possession of significant quantities can infer intent to distribute for ACCA purposes)
- United States v. Madera-Madera, 333 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003) (Georgia trafficking-by-possession statute infers intent to distribute based on quantity; supports treating trafficking conviction as a trafficking offense)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (modified categorical approach does not apply to indivisible statutes; did not overrule Robinson or James)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (realistic probability test limits reliance on hypothetical applications of state statutes)
- United States v. Brandon, 247 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2001) (agreed that trafficking-by-possession can imply intent to distribute but questioned sufficiency of low quantity thresholds in some statutes)