UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CLIFFORD LAINES, JR.
No. 20-12907; No. 21-11535
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
June 06, 2023
[PUBLISH]
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20980-CMA-1
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:
In this appeal, Clifford Laines challenges his drug- and firearm-related convictions as well as his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Laines argues that insufficient evidence supports two of his convictions and that he is entitled to a new trial based on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). But sufficient evidence supports Laines‘s convictions. He has also not established that it is reasonably probable that a new trial would result in a different outcome as required by Brady, nor has he provided any evidence of perjured testimony as required by Giglio. Finally, Laines argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erroneously sentenced him because his earlier cocaine conviction under Florida law does not constitute a serious drug offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act. But the district court did not plainly err in sentencing him. We affirm Laines‘s convictions and sentence.
I. BACKGROUND
Clifford Laines was released from prison in September 2018 after serving more than 25 years as punishment for second-degree murder. He was later arrested on October 7, 2018, and November 4, 2019. This appeal concerns convictions that arose from these arrests.
On October 7, 2018, police officers conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in which Laines was a passenger. When the vehicle came to a stop, Laines exited and began walking away. One of the police officers noticed a bulge in Laines‘s waistband and ordered him to stop walking. The officer caught up with Laines, patted him down, and removed a loaded gun with an extended magazine from his waistband. Laines was arrested, indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and released on bond.
On November 4, 2019, three police officers—Jordy Yanes-Martel, Carlos Romero, and Bryan Blanco—were at a gas station.
The officers gave chase, two on foot and one in a patrol car. Officer Blanco, who pursued by car, caught up with Laines first and tased him to prevent him from jumping over a residential fence. When the officers searched Laines, they found a gun and a “substantial amount of drugs” in his backpack. The drugs included marijuana, heroin, and cocaine, as well as substances that could be used to dilute or counterfeit those drugs. The drugs were primarily contained in small plastic bags or plastic wrap inside of a mason jar. Laines was carrying $244 in cash in varying denominations. He also carried a two-dollar bill in the mason jar, which drug dealers sometimes carry for good luck. A grand jury charged Laines with five counts arising from his possession of a firearm and possession of illegal drugs with the intent to distribute them.
At trial, Laines objected that a prosecution witness impermissibly testified to the ultimate issue of whether he intended the drugs he possessed for personal use or distribution. See
After the defense moved to strike the testimony, the district court instructed the jury to disregard it. Later, Laines moved under
After cross-examining Officer Blanco, Laines‘s attorneys stated that they learned for the first time that he had searched Laines‘s cell phone at the police station after Laines was arrested in November 2019. Blanco testified that after Laines had refused to identify himself to the police and the officers found no identification on his person, Blanco searched the phone for evidence of Laines‘s identity. Officer Blanco further explained that the cell phone was unlocked but that he did not have permission from Laines or a warrant to conduct a search. Blanco testified that he looked at the phone for “[j]ust a few seconds.” He opened the photo gallery application in search of “[a]nything that might have [Laines‘s] name on it” and found a photo of Laines‘s Florida identification card. Officer Blanco testified that he did not remember if he had searched texts, email, call history, or social media. He testified that he did not look for any information about individuals
Defense counsel moved for a mistrial. She argued that the search of a cell phone “needs to be disclosed to the defense,” especially because the defense had “asked the Government, at the[] discovery conference . . . if the cell phone had been searched or viewed and was told no.” Initially, the prosecutors responded that they had no previous knowledge of the search, but two days later they admitted that the prosecutor first assigned to the case had been aware. The prosecution did not deny that the search was “improper” but maintained that “there ha[d] been no evidence that ha[d] come out at trial that was as a result of [Officer Blanco] looking into the phone.” The district court denied the motion for a mistrial.
The jury convicted Laines of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition on October 7, 2018,
Before he was sentenced, Laines moved for a new trial on the counts arising from his November 2019 arrest on the ground that the police had unconstitutionally searched his phone. Laines further argued that the government was obligated to disclose the illegal search and disclose that the search did not reveal any evidence of drug trafficking because this information could be used for exculpatory and impeachment purposes. The district court denied the motion.
Laines later moved again for a new trial on the counts that arose from the November 2019 arrest because Officer Yanes-Martel—one of the officers who arrested Laines and served as a witness for the prosecution—had allegedly committed misconduct and was the subject of internal investigations. Laines listed three incidents of misconduct by Officer Yanes-Martel, occurring on January 14, February 3, and March 22, 2020. In January, Yanes-Martel allegedly “used excessive force while making an illegal arrest and subsequently falsified information in police reports.” In February, Yanes-
The government contends that it was unaware of the allegations before trial and that it had been informed of only one investigation before sentencing. Prosecutors initially interviewed Officer Yanes-Martel in November 2019, shortly before the trial was originally scheduled to take place and before any of the incidents had occurred. According to the prosecution, in February 2020, the trial team requested information about any charges or investigations concerning Yanes-Martel from his police department, which did not respond until March 17, 2020—after trial. And that response, the government tells us, “indicated only a pending disciplinary matter related to” the February incident. The government further contends that the trial team was not even aware of the police department‘s response until Laines requested information respecting the alleged misconduct.
Laines asserts that he learned about these investigations only after he had filed his appeal. For this reason, he styled his second motion for a new trial as a request for an indicative ruling that would inform this Court that the district court “would grant Mr.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Three standards govern our review. “We review both a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal de novo.” United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d 480, 497 (11th Cir. 2011). “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, making all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in the government‘s favor, and then determine whether a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (alteration adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A jury‘s verdict cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1297 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Herrera, 931 F.2d 761, 762 (11th Cir. 1991)). “[W]e review an alleged Brady-Giglio violation de novo and the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Gallardo, 977 F.3d 1126, 1142 n.12 (11th Cir. 2020). Finally, although we review de novo “whether a conviction qualifies as a serious drug offense under the [Armed Career Criminal Act],” United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2016),
III. DISCUSSION
We divide our discussion into four parts. First, we explain that the record contains sufficient evidence to support Laines‘s drug-related convictions. Second, we explain that Laines is not entitled to a new trial based on an alleged Brady or Giglio violation. Third, we explain that the district court did not plainly err in ruling that Laines‘s prior cocaine conviction qualified as a “serious drug offense.” Finally, we explain that Laines‘s advisory sentencing guideline range was not erroneously enhanced.
A. Sufficient Evidence Supports Laines‘s Drug Convictions.
Laines appeals the denial of his motion for acquittal on the drug-related charges due to insufficiency of the evidence. See
Sufficient evidence supports Laines‘s drug-related convictions. We have explained that “[i]ntent to distribute can be proven circumstantially.” United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1392 (11th Cir. 1989). For example, “the quantity” of the drug and “the existence of implements such as scales commonly used in . . . distribution” may constitute circumstantial evidence of such intent. Id.; see also United States v. Mercer, 541 F.3d 1070, 1076 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the jury could infer intent to distribute” from “a large number of plastic jeweler‘s bags, [a] ‘drug ledger,’ the amount of [the drug], the lack of paraphernalia used to consume the drug, and testimony about [the] Defendant‘s purchase of [drugs]” (footnotes omitted)). The jury heard evidence that Laines‘s possession of substances that could be used to dilute or “counterfeit” drugs, the division of drugs into small bags, the large quantity of small-denomination cash, the backpack as a method of conveyance, the
Ordinarily, when the district court instructs the jury to disregard inadmissible testimony as it did here, “the error is cured.” United States v. Benz, 740 F.2d 903, 916 (11th Cir. 1984). In his reply brief, Laines also argues that Agent Perry‘s testimony was not only inadmissible but was also so prejudicial that it rendered the error incurable. See id. Because Laines failed to argue in his initial brief that the error was incurable, that issue is forfeited. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Cypress, 814 F.3d 1202, 1210 (11th Cir. 2015).
B. Laines Is Not Entitled to a New Trial Under Brady or Giglio.
Laines twice moved for a new trial, but the district court denied both motions. First, he moved for a new trial under Brady based on the revelation at trial that the police unconstitutionally searched Laines‘s phone after his 2019 arrest. Second, Laines moved for a new trial under Brady and Giglio based on his discovery, after this appeal was noticed, that an arresting officer and prosecution witness was the subject of internal investigations. Laines appeals the denial of those motions.
Under Brady v. Maryland, a court should grant a new trial if the prosecution suppresses favorable evidence that is material to
1. No Brady Violation Occurred Regarding the Cell Phone Search.
Laines asserts that he is entitled to a new trial on the charges that arose from his November 2019 arrest under Brady because the prosecution failed to disclose in advance of trial that his cell phone had been searched by the police after that arrest. He argues that, had the search been revealed before trial, his trial strategy would have changed in two ways: he would have argued that a lack of evidence of drug trafficking on his phone weighed against a finding of guilt, and he would have used the evidence of the illegal search to impeach Officer Blanco. But Laines‘s arguments fail to establish that he is entitled to a new trial.
Laines cannot establish that the evidence from his phone was sufficiently favorable to create a reasonable probability of a different result. Laines argues that “[t]he evidence is favorable . . . because the absence of evidence of drug trafficking in the phone is
Even if the evidence were exculpatory, Laines also cannot establish that he could not have obtained the evidence with reasonable diligence. Laines asserts that he took the only reasonably diligent step he could when defense counsel asked the prosecution “whether law enforcement searched the phone.” But, as the district court explained, we “can presume that [Laines] knows the contents of his own cell phone.” Laines could have examined the phone during discovery and made this argument at trial even though he was unaware beforehand that the police had briefly searched the phone after his arrest. So, he could have learned of the evidence with “reasonable diligence,” id., before trial.
Finally, Laines cannot establish that he lacked an opportunity to impeach Officer Blanco based on the illegal search of his phone. Laines contends that, because he learned of the search at
2. No Brady or Giglio Violation Occurred Regarding the Witness Subject to Internal Investigations.
Laines argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Brady and Giglio because Officer Yanes-Martel—one of the officers who arrested him in 2019 and served as a witness for the government—was the subject of three internal investigations for misconduct. The district court denied Laines‘s motion for a new trial on this basis. It found that “the Government‘s case against [Laines] rested on overwhelming evidence,” independent of Yanes-Martel‘s testimony.
We agree that Laines‘s argument fails. Under Giglio, Laines would have to prove “that the prosecution‘s case included perjured
Laines contends that the misconduct undermines Officer Yanes-Martel‘s credibility and, by extension, “undermines the legal basis for the stop” in November 2019. Laines suggests that he would have argued that the initial stop was illegal, so the resulting arrest and search were constitutionally infirm. See United States v. Jones, 619 F.2d 494, 498 (5th Cir. 1980); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484 (1963). But even if Laines could have proved that the stop was illegal—which we have no reason to believe he could have done—such evidence is not “material either to guilt or to punishment” as required under Brady. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; see also Smith v. Sec‘y, Dep‘t of Corr., 572 F.3d 1327, 1342 n.9 (11th Cir. 2009) (expressing doubt “that Brady applies outside the realm of exculpatory evidence and extends to evidence useful to the defense in a fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree quest“).
Laines also argues that the misconduct undermines Yanes-Martel‘s testimony across the board, but the corroborating evidence would be sufficient to support the jury‘s guilty verdict even if Officer Yanes-Martel had been totally discredited. The other officers’ testimony tracked that of Officer Yanes-Martel. Officers Blanco and Romero testified that Laines was riding a purple bicycle, that Officer Yanes-Martel identified him based on the description in an alert, and that Laines fled when ordered to stop. Officer Blanco further testified that he pursued Laines and that he found a
C. The District Court Did Not Commit Plain Error When It Classified Laines‘s Prior Conviction Under Section 893.13(1)(a)(1) of the Florida Statutes as a “Serious Drug Offense.”
Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, if a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under section 922(g) “has three previous convictions . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense,” a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years applies.
Laines‘s status as an armed career criminal is based on three earlier convictions, but—for the first time on appeal—he contests whether only one of them constitutes “a violent felony or a serious drug offense,” see
Because Laines did not contest at sentencing whether his prior conviction is a “serious drug offense,” we review only for plain error, Bennett, 472 F.3d at 831, and Laines cannot satisfy that standard. We have held that a conviction under section 893.13(1) qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. See United States v. Travis Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Xavier Smith, 983 F.3d 1213, 1223 (11th Cir. 2020). Laines has identified no decision overruling or abrogating these precedents, so he cannot establish that it is “‘obvious’ or ‘clear under current law‘” that the district court erred. Candelario, 240 F.3d at 1309 (citation omitted). And we have expressly rejected Laines‘s argument that, in the light of the decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010), we must look to the sentence that the particular defendant could have received under the sentencing guidelines instead of the statutory maximum. See United States v. Gardner, 34 F.4th 1283, 1288, 1289 & n.3 (11th Cir. 2022).
Our dissenting colleague credits Laines‘s argument that the prosecution failed to carry its burden of proving that the Florida definition of cocaine is coextensive with or narrower than the federal definition. Dissenting Op. at 1. When Laines was convicted of possessing cocaine with intent to sell, Florida law encompassed, as it still does, “any” stereoisomer of cocaine,
Chamu is distinguishable. Chamu addressed whether a conviction under Florida Statutes section 893.13(6)(a) is “relat[ed] to a controlled substance” for the purpose of the Immigration and Nationality Act, id. at 1329 (quoting
Laines has not satisfied his burden on appeal of establishing that his sentencing classification was plainly erroneous. Under our
D. No Plain Error Occurred in Calculating Laines‘s Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range.
Laines argues for the first time on appeal that his “advisory sentencing guideline range was erroneously calculated.” He contends that because his “prior conviction is not a serious drug offense, he no longer qualifies for either the statutory sentencing enhancement under [the Armed Career Criminal Act] or the corresponding guideline enhancement.” See
We AFFIRM Laines‘s convictions and sentence.
United States v. Clifford Laines, Jr.
No. 20-12907
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
June 6, 2023
ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge
Napoleon Bonaparte said, “Respect the burden.”1 Of course, he was not talking about collateral effects of prior convictions. But as it turns out, that quotation is apt when we are.
Who bears the burden of proving that a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate conviction or doesn‘t under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA“) is the deciding factor in this case. And that factor requires us to vacate Laines‘s ACCA-enhanced sentence because the government bore the burden in the district court of proving that ACCA applies, but it failed to do so.
So while I agree with the Majority Opinion that Laines‘s convictions should be affirmed,2 I disagree with its conclusion that
I divide my discussion into two substantive parts. In Section I, I explain why the government bore the burden to establish that Laines‘s Florida cocaine-trafficking conviction qualifies as a predicate crime under ACCA and how it failed to do so. And Section II shows that the government‘s failure to establish that Laines‘s conviction serves as a predicate crime under ACCA caused plain error requiring remand for a new sentencing.
I.
Laines asserts that his conviction under
To understand Laines‘s argument, we must consider the Florida and federal definitions of “cocaine” for purposes of controlled-substance offenses. Florida law defines “cocaine” as “[c]ocaine or ecgonine, including any of their stereoisomers, and
No one disputes Laines‘s conclusion that if nongeometric diastereomers of cocaine exist, his Florida cocaine-trafficking conviction cannot be an ACCA predicate offense because then the Florida law criminalizes conduct that the federal law does not. And in fact, because of that possible mismatch between the Florida and federal definitions of “cocaine,” in Chamu, we explained that we could not “hold that Florida‘s definition of cocaine is completely consistent with the federal definition.” Chamu, 23 F.4th at 1332. But unlike Laines‘s criminal case, Chamu was an immigration case. So in Chamu, the burden fell on the migrant petitioner there to prove that his conviction did not qualify as a removal crime. As a result, we concluded we could “hold that [the petitioner] ha[d] failed to
We can‘t say the same thing here, though. Unlike in the immigration context, in the criminal-sentencing environment, the government bears the burden of proving any sentencing enhancement—including an ACCA enhancement—applies. The Supreme Court has recently emphasized this point, contrasting the burden of proving whether a prior conviction affects removability under the
Pereida‘s recognition that the government must carry the burden to prove a prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate is nothing new. Our case law has long held the same thing. United States v. Hernandez, 145 F.3d 1433, 1440 (11th Cir. 1998) (“The burden of proof for establishing that a sentencing enhancement is warranted lies with the prosecution, and it is the duty of the district
So after Chamu recognized that, by its terms, the Florida definition of “cocaine” may be broader than the federal definition, it‘s clear that the government bore the burden at Laines‘s sentencing to show that no stereoisomers other than optical and geometric isomers of cocaine exist.
The government can satisfy its burden in a couple of ways.
First, in the ordinary case, the government is often able to discharge its burden by comparing the text of the underlying state statute to the text of the federal statute and proving that the language of the state statute does not sweep more broadly than the language of the federal statute does. See, e.g., United States v. Vail-Bailon, 868 F.3d 1293, 1303 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (holding that “[b]y its plain terms, felony battery in violation of
But crucially, after Chamu, the government cannot make that showing in this case because we have acknowledged that “we cannot hold that Florida‘s definition of cocaine is completely consistent with the federal definition.” Chamu, 23 F.4th at 1332. That conclusion followed from our observation that “stereoisomers include at least one chemical subset that is not listed in federal law—nongeometric diastereomers.” Id. at 1331.
Along the same lines, the government can also meet its burden to establish an ACCA predicate by pointing to controlling precedent that already answers the question of whether a defendant‘s prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense. See United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 940 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1231, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016). The government seeks to do so here, arguing that it is “settled law” that convictions under
But we have recently explained that the Smith decisions “construed the part of ACCA‘s ‘serious drug offense’ definition that requires the state offense to involve the conduct of ‘manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute.‘” United States v. Jackson, 55 F.4th 846, 853 (11th Cir. 2022) (emphasis in original), cert. granted, 2023 WL 3440568 (U.S. May 15, 2023). They did not involve the part of ACCA‘s definition that Laines challenges here—the definition of a “controlled substance.” Id. at 853-54. As we explained in Jackson, the most that can be said about the Smith decisions is that they “assumed that [ACCA‘s] ‘serious drug offense’ definition and section 893.13(1) encompass the same universe of substances.” Id. at 854. But those decisions’ assumptions do not address the aspect of ACCA that is germane to Laines‘s arguments, so they do not resolve Laines‘s challenge.
The Majority Opinion appears to credit the government‘s argument that the Smith decisions resolve Laines‘s challenge. It cites those decisions for the contention that “[w]e have held that a conviction under section 893.13(1) qualifies as a ‘serious drug offense’ under [ACCA],” and then says that “Laines has identified no decision overruling or abrogating these precedents.” Maj. Op. at 20. But in relying on the Smith decisions, the Majority Opinion ignores Jackson and its explanation that the Smith decisions are not controlling in cases like this one that “ask[] us to construe the part of ACCA‘s ‘serious drug offense’ definition that requires the state offense to involve ‘a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the
To be sure, Jackson did not purport to abrogate the Smith decisions. But it clarified that the government cannot rely on the
So here, the government cannot rely on either the plain text of the statutes or controlling precedent to meet its burden. Rather, it must find a different path. In its only effort to do so here, the government argues that “[g]eometric and optical isomers are the two types of stereoisomers,”4 suggesting that no other types of stereoisomers exist. In support of this contention, the government cites our decision in Phifer. There, we said “[o]ptical and geometric isomers . . . are sub-types of stereoisomers.” Phifer, 909 F.3d at 377.
But critically, we did not say those are the only sub-types of stereoisomers. For good reason. Phifer was primarily concerned
But returning to Chamu, we must conclude that the government‘s mistake is clear, and we must reject its argument. Chamu expressly explains that there are three categories of stereoisomers: optical isomers, geometric isomers, and nongeometric diastereomers. Chamu, 23 F.4th at 1330 & n.2. So if nongeometric diastereomers of cocaine exist, then Florida‘s definition of the substance is categorically overbroad in comparison to the federal definition.
Our sister circuits have also recognized the principle that a state statute whose definition covers more than the federal definition is categorically overbroad, so convictions under that state statute cannot categorically qualify as predicates for sentence enhancements. See United States v. Myers, 56 F.4th 595, 598-99 (8th Cir. 2022) (holding Missouri‘s definition of “cocaine” is categorically broader than federal definition); United States v. Owen, 51 F.4th 292, 295-96 (8th Cir. 2022) (same for Minnesota‘s definition of “cocaine“); United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642, 647-48 (7th Cir. 2020) (same for Illinois‘s).
And a state law that controls more isomers of a controlled substance than federal law does has also led a court to hold that the state law is categorically overbroad to serve as a predicate offense for an enhanced sentence. United States v. De La Torre, 940 F.3d 938, 951-52 (7th Cir. 2019) (holding Indiana law criminalizing distribution of methamphetamine is categorically overbroad because state law controls more isomers than federal law does).
But the government made no such showing here. To be sure, Chamu issued after Laines‘s sentencing. But even before Chamu, the government could have anticipated this problem by comparing the text of the Florida definition to the text of the federal definition and recognizing the disparity. And Chamu resolved any uncertainty about the scopes of those definitions. After surveying the organic-chemistry landscape, we observed there that Florida law‘s proscription of “any stereoisomers” of cocaine is facially broader than federal law‘s ban on only “optical and geometric isomers” of cocaine. Chamu, 23 F.4th at 1330-31 & n.2.
But as in Chamu, we are left with the question of whether nongeometric diastereomers of cocaine exist in the real world. Just as the “dearth of evidence” about their existence was “fatal for Chamu, who b[ore] the burden of proof” there, 23 F.4th at 1332, that same dearth of evidence is now fatal for the government, which bears the burden here. To discharge its burden to show that convictions for cocaine distribution under
For its part, the Majority Opinion tries a couple of different paths to (incorrectly) conclude that the government satisfied its burden.
First, it says that the government satisfied its burden in the district court when Laines did not object to the armed-career-criminal classification. Maj. Op. at 22. But the Majority Opinion‘s attempt to rescue the government is inconsistent with how we‘ve expressed the government‘s burden. Indeed, as I noted, we‘ve
So a defendant‘s failure to object is not relevant to the inquiry and cannot relieve the government of its burden to establish the enhancement. Nor, contrary to the Majority Opinion‘s contention, can the fact that a defendant‘s “failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for sentencing purposes.” United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306, 1323 (11th Cir. 2009). Whether a cocaine-related conviction under
Rather, the way we deal with such a legal challenge when the defendant fails to raise it in the district court is to apply plain-error review. See infra Part II. Because the government sought to apply an enhancement, it had the burden in the district court to establish that the enhancement applies. And given Chamu‘s recognition that the plain language of
II.
The government‘s failure to establish that Laines‘s Florida cocaine-trafficking conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate amounts to plain error here. Because Laines did not raise this issue in the district court, to prevail on appeal, Laines must not only establish that his challenge to his sentence is correct as a legal matter, but he must also satisfy the plain-error standard.
Plain error occurs when there is (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects the defendant‘s substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Lewis, 40 F.4th 1229, 1246 (11th Cir. 2022). Laines satisfies all four requirements.
Turning to the second requirement—the plainness of that error—that error is plain here as the result of two lines of cases. One, our Hernandez line of cases, along with the Supreme Court‘s recent affirmation in Pereida, plainly establish that in a sentencing, the government bears the burden of showing that a sentencing enhancement applies. And two, Chamu is directly on point in concluding that, under the wording of the Florida and federal definitions of “cocaine,” uncertainty exists as to whether the Florida definition of “cocaine” is broader than the federal definition. So because uncertainty remains, the Hernandez and Pereida line of cases dictates that the burden for removing that uncertainty lies squarely on the government‘s shoulders.
It doesn‘t matter to the plain-error analysis that Chamu issued after Laines‘s sentencing. Rather, “an intervening decision by
To be sure, Chamu does not definitively establish that the Florida definition of “cocaine” is broader than the federal definition or that more than two categories of stereoisomers of cocaine exist. But that makes no difference because as I‘ve noted, in the sentencing context, the burden of resolving that open question is one the government must bear. Without proof that nongeometric diastereomers of cocaine don‘t exist, we are left with a state statute that purports to sweep more broadly than federal law does. And in such circumstances, the government cannot use convictions under the state offense to support ACCA enhancements. See Mathis, 579 U.S. at 505.
Because Chamu makes it “plain” and “obvious” that there is potential daylight between the Florida definition of “cocaine” and the federal definition, and because the government has not met its burden to eliminate that daylight, Chamu establishes the plainness of the error with Laines‘s sentence. On the record here, we have no reasonable basis upon which to conclude that the government has satisfied its burden.
Of course, Laines cannot prove that Chamu alone demands his sentence be vacated. Nor can he represent that he will ultimately receive a sentence without an ACCA enhancement. But at this stage, following Chamu, he can prove that the government hasn‘t satisfied its burden and that the ACCA enhancement, as it currently stands, is improper.
And even though it may seem unusual to find plain error and require the government to prove a negative based on a factual question—whether nongeometric diastereomers of cocaine exist—the Supreme Court has explained that “there is no legal basis for the . . . practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error.” Davis v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1060, 1062 (2020)
Although the error is plain here, I echo the Supreme Court‘s acknowledgment that “plain-error review is not a grading system for trial judges.” Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 278 (2013). Without an objection from Laines or the benefit of Chamu, the district court had little reason to question the government‘s proposed ACCA enhancement. But the plain-error standard “has broader purposes, including in part allowing courts of appeals to better to identify those instances in which the application of a new rule of law to cases on appeal will meet the demands of fairness and judicial integrity.” Id. So now that we are equipped with Chamu and the knowledge that the Florida definition of “cocaine” is facially broader than the federal definition, the government must carry its burden to establish an enhanced sentence.
The third and fourth prongs of the plain-error standard ask whether the error affected Laines‘s substantial rights and whether the error has seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings in this case, respectively. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Laines satisfies both.
To make the “substantial rights” showing, a defendant “must show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the
In my view, allowing Laines‘s 300-month sentence to stand when the government has not met its burden to show that the enhanced sentence is warranted seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the proceedings here. Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1907-08 (2018) (explaining that “[t]he risk of unnecessary deprivation of liberty particularly undermines the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings“).
III.
The government has not yet met its burden to show that Laines‘s conviction for cocaine distribution can serve as a predicate offense for an enhanced sentence. To respect that burden, I would vacate Laines‘s sentence and remand to the district court for a hearing to allow the government to make the requisite showing.
I respectfully dissent.