United States v. Omari Elliot, 732 F.3d 1307

Omari Elliot was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)).
District court applied a U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career-offender enhancement based on two prior felony convictions and imposed a life sentence.
Eyewitness identified Elliot from a computer-generated photo lineup; eyewitness had previously seen online/printed photos and part of a surveillance tape, but police did not arrange those non-police viewings.
Elliot’s DNA was found on a smashed jewelry case at the scene, and Elliot confessed to the robbery.
At issue on appeal: (1) whether pretrial photographic identification and subsequent in-court ID were impermissibly suggestive/state-action violating due process; (2) whether an Alabama youthful offender adjudication (when Elliot was 20) qualifies as a "prior felony conviction" for § 4B1.1.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of eyewitness photographic and in-court ID	Photo lineup was unduly suggestive because witness had seen Elliot's photos and part of surveillance video earlier, tainting identification	Police did not arrange suggestive identification; lineup assembled by computer; officers did not pressure witness; non-police viewings do not trigger exclusion	Court affirmed admission — no impermissible police conduct; even if error, admission was harmless given DNA and confession
Youthful offender adjudication as prior felony for § 4B1.1	Alabama law says youthful offender adjudication is not a conviction; thus it cannot be used as a prior conviction for career-offender enhancement	Sentencing Guidelines define "conviction" by federal law; prior adjudications (including youthful or nolo pleas with withheld adjudication) can qualify for federal sentencing enhancements	Court held the Alabama youthful offender adjudication counts as a prior conviction for § 4B1.1 under federal law; career-offender classification affirmed

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for excluding identification testimony when pretrial photographic procedure is impermissibly suggestive)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (Sup. Ct.) (due process exclusion requires police-arranged suggestive circumstances; absent police action, jury should assess reliability)
United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir.) (unreliable identification admission is subject to harmless-error analysis)
United States v. Acosta, 287 F.3d 1034 (11th Cir.) (New York youthful offender adjudication treated as conviction for federal sentencing enhancement; federal law defines “conviction”)
United States v. Jones, 910 F.2d 760 (11th Cir.) (nolo contendere plea with adjudication withheld may count as conviction for career-offender purposes)
United States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514 (11th Cir.) (prior nolo plea with adjudication withheld can be included in criminal-history calculations)