Case: 13-15683 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-15683
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20383-KMW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 5, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-15683 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 2 of 5
Timothy Smith appeals his sentence of 180 months of imprisonment
following his plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Smith challenges the enhancement of his
sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. See id. § 924(e)(1). We affirm.
Smith argues that his prior conviction in a Florida court for possessing with
intent to deliver cocaine does not qualify as a “serious drug offense” under the Act,
but we disagree. The Act defines a “serious drug offense” broadly as “an offense
under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to
manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), for which a maximum term of
imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” Id. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii); see
United States v. James, 430 F.3d 1150, 1155 (11th Cir. 2005). Smith’s prior
conviction falls squarely within that definition. Smith violated a Florida law that
makes it unlawful “to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell,
manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance,” Fla. Stat. §§ 893.13(1)(a)1.,
893.03(2)(a)4., and for which he faced a maximum sentence of 15 years of
imprisonment, id. § 775.082(3)(d). Smith contends that his prior conviction does
not qualify as a predicate offense because it does not require proof that an offender
know of the illicit nature of the substance in his possession, but proof of that
2
Case: 13-15683 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 3 of 5
knowledge is not required for a drug offense under state law to qualify as a
“serious drug offense.”
Smith argues that the district court was required to compare his state offense
to a generic offense under the categorical approach that we applied in Donawa v.
United States Attorney General, 735 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013), but we disagree.
In Donawa, we held that an alien’s conviction for possessing with intent to deliver
marijuana, see Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a)2., failed to qualify as an “aggravated
felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act – that is, the state offense did
not fit the definition of a “drug trafficking crime,” see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2).
Donawa, 735 F.3d at 1280–81. We concluded that the Florida statute did not
“categorically fit[] within the generic federal definition of a corresponding
aggravated felony” because the federal analogue to the Florida statute, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), required proof that the defendant had knowledge of the nature of the
substance in his possession, but the Florida statute did not. Id. Unlike the defendant
in Donawa, Smith was sentenced under the Armed Career Act, which includes as a
“serious drug offense” a prior state conviction for possessing with intent to
distribute a controlled drug. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). The Armed Career
Act does not require the district court to compare an offense under state law to a
generic offense.
3
Case: 13-15683 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 4 of 5
Smith, for the first time on appeal, argues that Staples v. United States, 511
U.S. 600, 114 S. Ct. 1793 (1994), required the district court to presume that his
drug offense required proof that he knew of the illicit nature of the substance in his
possession, but the district court did not plainly err. In Staples, the Supreme Court
held that there is a scienter requirement implicit in the offense of possessing an
unregistered automatic firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Staples, 511 U.S. at 618–
19, 114 S. Ct. at 1803–04. “An error is ‘plain’ [only] if controlling precedent from
the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit establishes that an error has occurred.”
United States v. Ramirez–Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 822 (11th Cir. 2014). The district
court did not plainly err in failing to apply Staples, which did not address the
Armed Career Act. In Staples, the Supreme Court also “emphasize[d] that [its]
holding [was] a narrow one.” 511 U.S. at 619, 114 S. Ct. at 1804. Staples does not
establish that an error occurred in sentencing Smith.
Smith also argues that the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Alleyne v.
United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151(2013), requires that the government
prove his prior convictions to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but we disagree.
The Supreme Court in Alleyne refused to revisit its holding in Almendarez–Torres
v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), that the fact of a prior
conviction is not an element of an offense that needs to be proven beyond a
4
Case: 13-15683 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 5 of 5
reasonable doubt, id. at 239–47, 118 S. Ct. at 1228–32. Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2160
n.1.
We AFFIRM Smith’s sentence.
5