UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Burl L. BARGERON, a.k.a. Buckshot, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-15906
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 28, 2011.
435 Fed. Appx. 892
Non-Argument Calendar.
Maurice C. Grant, II, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender‘s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Burl Bargeron appeals his 180-month total sentence imposed after a stipulated bench trial at which he was convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
We review de novo whether an offense is a violent felony for ACCA purposes, and whether prior convictions meet the ACCA‘s separate offenses requirement. United States v. Sneed, 600 F.3d 1326, 1330 n. 5 (11th Cir.2010) (separate offenses); United States v. James, 430 F.3d 1150, 1153 (11th Cir.2005) (violent felony). Even if the district court commits a sentencing error, we will not vacate a sentence if that error was harmless. See United States v. Scott, 441 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir.2006).
A person who violates
Two crimes are distinct criminal episodes where some temporal break occurs between them, and the ACCA enhancement will apply if a criminal had a meaningful opportunity to desist his activity
As of 1999, the state of Florida defined “burglary” as entering or remaining in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises were, at the time, open to the public, or the defendant was licensed or invited to enter or remain.
In this case, even if the district court erred by concluding that Bargeron‘s conspiracy conviction qualified as a third predicate ACCA conviction, any such error was harmless. Bargeron stipulated to a 1999 Florida conviction for burglary of a structure. Burglary of a structure, at the time of Bargeron‘s offense, constituted a generic burglary to the extent the crime involved a building because it criminalized the unlawful entering or remaining in a building with the intent to commit an offense therein. Compare
Moreover, Bargeron‘s burglary offense occurred on a different occasion than his two trafficking offenses. It occurred at least four years prior to his trafficking offenses, giving him ample time to desist in his criminal activity. Further, a conviction for the burglary offense separated it from the trafficking offenses. Thus, the successful completion of Bargeron‘s burglary offense, in conjunction with his subsequent decision to commit two trafficking offenses, rendered the burglary offense a distinct criminal episode in relation to the trafficking offenses. See Pope, 132 F.3d at 692.
Finally, Bargeron does not argue on appeal that the district court erred by concluding that his two trafficking convictions qualified as ACCA predicate convictions for enhancement purposes, and has abandoned any claim of error. See United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n. 8 (11th Cir.2003). Bargeron, therefore, had three qualifying prior convictions even if his conspiracy conviction is disregarded, and was subject to the ACCA 15-year statutory minimum sentence.
AFFIRMED.
