34 F.4th 1283
11th Cir.2022Background:
- Gardner, a convicted felon, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- PSI produced a Guidelines range of 57–71 months (offense level 23, CH III); statutory maximum for the § 922(g) count was 10 years; government sought ACCA enhancement.
- Gardner had four prior Alabama drug convictions: a 2011 Class C possession (5-year sentence), two 2014 Class C possession convictions ( sentenced under Alabama’s 2013 presumptive guidelines to 24 months each), and a 2015 Class B distribution conviction (7 years under presumptive guidelines).
- Under Alabama law the statutory maxima (and habitual-offender enhancements) exposed those offenses to higher maximums (10 or 20 years, and up to life for repeat offenders), while Alabama’s presumptive guidelines set lower durational “ranges” and permit upward departures on specified aggravating findings.
- The district court held Gardner had at least three ACCA “serious drug offenses” because each prior drug conviction carried a statutory maximum term of 10 years or more, raising Gardner’s total offense level and criminal-history category and producing a 180-month ACCA-mandatory sentence.
Issues:
| Issue | Gardner's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ACCA phrase “maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law” refers to the high end of a state presumptive guidelines range or to the statutory maximum | The relevant “maximum” is the high end of Alabama’s presumptive sentencing range applicable to Gardner’s prior convictions | The relevant “maximum” is the statutory maximum prescribed by state law (including applicable habitual-offender enhancements) | The court applied the categorical approach and held the ACCA refers to the statutory maximum, not the presumptive-guidelines high end |
| Whether McCarthy (11th Cir.) has been abrogated or undermined by Supreme Court decisions (Rodriguez, Carachuri‑Rosendo) such that the guidelines range should control | McCarthy is undermined and the practical maximum faced by the defendant under state sentencing procedures should control | McCarthy remains good law; Rodriguez and Carachuri‑Rosendo are consistent with McCarthy’s statutory‑maximum rule | The court rejected Gardner’s contention and held McCarthy remains controlling; Rodriguez and Carachuri‑Rosendo support using the statutory maximum |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. United States, 135 F.3d 754 (11th Cir. 1998) (applies categorical approach and treats the statutory maximum as the ACCA’s "maximum term")
- United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377 (2008) (interprets "maximum term" to mean the statutory maximum, not the top of a guidelines range)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (immigration decision discussed by court as not undermining McCarthy)
- United States v. Conage, 976 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020) (noting de novo review for ACCA predicate-qualification issues)