United States v. Pantle
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6809
11th Cir.2011Background
- Pantle was sentenced to 120 months for knowingly possessing a firearm after felony conviction (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- Base offense level was 24 under § 2K2.1(a)(2) due to two prior crimes of violence (Florida battery, 2006; Alabama attempted first degree assault, 1997).
- Two-level enhancement for a stolen firearm and four-level enhancement for firearm use in connection with the Alabama conviction; adjusted level 30, criminal history VI.
- Guidelines range was 168–210 months, but statutory maximum was 120 months, fixing the sentence under § 5G1.1(a).
- District court acknowledged factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) but stated 120 months was the maximum permitted.
- Pantle challenged whether the Florida and Alabama convictions qualified as crimes of violence under the guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Pantle's prior convictions qualify as crimes of violence? | Pantle contends Florida battery and Alabama assault conviction are not crimes of violence. | Pantle contends the convictions may be treated as crimes of violence under § 4B1.2(a) via the modified approach. | Court adopts plain-error framework; does not resolve merits, but affirms despite potential error. |
| Whether the district court erred in applying base offense level due to those convictions being crimes of violence? | Pantle argues convictions should not raise base level to 24. | Pantle argues the convictions qualify as crimes of violence under the guidelines. | Court resolves under plain-error standard; affirmance without plain-error correction. |
| Was there plain error that affected Pantle's substantial rights and the sentence? | Pantle asserts error reduced the sentence potential. | Pantle bears burden to show prejudice; argues possible shorter sentence if errors ignored. | Pantle did not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a more favorable sentence; error not plain and not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Llanos-Agostadero, 486 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir.2007) (standard for determining a prior conviction's classification as a crime of violence)
- Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.2005) (plain-error review framework for sentencing errors when no objection was raised)
- Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.2005) (plain-error prejudice standard; burden on defendant)
- Palomino Garcia, 606 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.2010) (modified categorical approach to identify which statutory phrase supports a conviction)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (permissible sources for the modified categorical approach)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010) (Florida felony battery not a violent felony under ACCA use clause)
- Rainey, 362 F.3d 733 (11th Cir.2004) (relationship between violent felony and career-offender guidelines)
- Alexander, 609 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir.2010) (categorical vs. modified categorical approach to crimes of violence)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (statutory elements requiring mental state in 'crime' definitions)
- Antonietti, 86 F.3d 206 (11th Cir.1996) (mandatory guidelines and effect on prejudice under plain-error analysis)