Case: 11-14288 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14288
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 3:10-cr-00204-MMH-MCR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTWAN R. CRAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 30, 2012)
Before HULL, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 11-14288 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Defendant appeals his 180-month prison sentence. Upon review of the
record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm Defendant’s sentence.
Following a bench trial, the District Court found Defendant guilty of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), the District Court
sentenced Defendant to 180 months of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
Defendant contends, for the first time on appeal, that the sentence violates
the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. According
to Defendant, the District Court violated the Eighth Amendment by classifying
Defendant as an “armed career criminal” because two of Defendant’s predicate
state convictions were for conduct that occurred when Defendant was 17 years old
(and because one conviction stemmed from conduct shortly after Defendant turned
18 years old).
We ordinarily review de novo a district court’s application of the ACCA.
See United States v. Pope, 132 F.3d 684, 689 (11th Cir. 1998). But we review a
constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal only for plain error. United
States v. Day, 465 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also United
2
Case: 11-14288 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 3 of 4
States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“Where a
defendant raises a sentencing argument for the first time on appeal, we review for
plain error.”).
The ACCA subjects a defendant convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) to a
mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years of imprisonment if the defendant has
three prior convictions for serious drug offenses, committed on different
occasions. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
We have written that a prior conviction where the defendant was a juvenile
at the time of the offense conduct “counts towards ACCA enhancement” where the
government prosecutes the defendant as an adult. United States v. Spears, 443
F.3d 1358, 1360-61 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
We have also interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v.
Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005), a decision Defendant cites for support. Roper
decided “only that the Eighth Amendment prohibits sentencing capital offenders to
death if the offender was under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense.”
United States v. Wilks, 464 F.3d 1240, 1243 (11th Cir. 2006). Roper did not
decide sentence enhancement under the ACCA. Id. And in Wilks we again
concluded that offenses committed while the defendant was a juvenile can qualify
as predicate offenses for sentence enhancement under the ACCA. Id.
3
Case: 11-14288 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 4 of 4
Here, Defendant acknowledges “that the state of the law in this circuit, as
reflected above, is adverse to his position.” But Defendant urges us to reconsider
our precedent. We decline to do so. A directly on-point decision of a prior panel
binds us unless the Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc overrules the prior
panel’s decision. E.g., United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir.
1997) (per curiam).
Under the already-existing law, the District Court committed no plain error
by relying in part on Defendant’s two Florida state convictions -- stemming from
offenses committed while Defendant was a juvenile -- to classify Defendant as an
armed career criminal under the ACCA. Defendant’s constitutional challenge
fails. We AFFIRM Defendant’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4