United States v. Tasmine Shawaun Boatwright
713 F. App'x 871
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Boatwright pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); he admitted the gun and ammo traveled in interstate commerce.
- PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2), giving a base offense level of 24 because Boatwright had two prior Florida aggravated-battery convictions treated as "crimes of violence."
- With adjustments and Criminal History Category V, the Guidelines range was 84–105 months; the district court sentenced Boatwright to 70 months, concurrent with state time.
- At sentencing, defense urged a concurrent sentence that expired with state time to allow earlier release for counseling; government urged additional federal time so Boatwright could receive treatment in BOP programs.
- The district court acknowledged Boatwright’s abusive upbringing and rehabilitative needs but imposed 70 months to balance public protection and opportunity for treatment.
- Boatwright appealed raising three issues: (1) Commerce Clause challenge to § 922(g), (2) whether his Florida aggravated-battery convictions qualify as "crimes of violence" for § 2K2.1, and (3) whether the court plainly erred by considering rehabilitation when imposing imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Boatwright's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 922(g) (facial & as-applied) | § 922(g) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power; as-applied, purely intrastate possession not covered so guilty plea was not knowing | § 922(g) contains an express jurisdictional interstate-commerce requirement; minimal nexus (firearm traveled in interstate commerce) satisfied here | Rejected: binding precedent upholds § 922(g); firearm manufactured out-of-state satisfied the minimal nexus, plea valid |
| Applicability of § 2K2.1(a)(2) enhancement — are Fla. § 784.045 convictions "crimes of violence" | Turner and related precedent wrongly classify Fla. aggravated battery as crimes of violence; challenge to enhancement | Turner and circuit precedent treat § 784.045 (great bodily harm or deadly-weapon alternatives) as meeting the elements clause of a crime of violence | Rejected: under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent (Turner), the convictions qualify as crimes of violence and enhancement was proper |
| Sentencing error under Tapia — court considered rehabilitation when imposing prison term | District court improperly considered rehabilitation to justify longer federal term; this is plain Tapia error affecting substantial rights | Although court mentioned rehabilitation, it primarily relied on § 3553(a) factors and public-protection concerns; any Tapia error did not affect substantial rights | Affirmed: court committed plain error by considering rehabilitation, but Boatwright failed to show a reasonable probability the error affected the sentence outcome, so sentence stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2011) (upholding § 922(g) with express jurisdictional interstate-commerce requirement)
- United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2010) (minimal nexus/interstate-travel of firearm suffices under § 922(g))
- United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2001) (same)
- United States v. McAllister, 77 F.3d 387 (11th Cir. 1996) (same)
- Turner v. Warden, Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013) (Florida aggravated battery meets elements clause for force-based offenses)
- United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937 (11th Cir. 2016) (elements-clause analysis applies similarly under Guidelines)
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (sentencing court may not lengthen imprisonment to promote rehabilitation)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court errs if it considers rehabilitation when imposing imprisonment)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits on using Shepard documents under modified categorical approach)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (plain-error standard and substantial-rights inquiry for sentencing errors)
- Olano v. United States, 566 U.S. 129 (2009) (standard for correcting plain errors on appeal)