USCA11 Case: 19-15148 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-15148
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cr-00052-MW-CAS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PATRICK LEMUEL BASS,
a.k.a. Lem,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(October 15, 2020)
USCA11 Case: 19-15148 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 2 of 7
Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Patrick Bass appeals his 96-month sentence following his guilty
plea for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The
district court sentenced Bass pursuant to the career offender enhancement in the
Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. On appeal, Bass argues that the
district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because he did not have
two qualifying predicate convictions. We affirm.
I.
Bass pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine. Before his sentencing, a probation officer prepared a
presentence investigation report (“PSI”). The PSI applied the career offender
enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). The PSI
explained that Bass qualified as a career offender because he had at least two prior
felony convictions for offenses that were either controlled substance offenses or
crimes of violence. The PSI identified three convictions that qualified as predicate
offenses: (1) a 2001 Alabama conviction for distribution of controlled substances,
(2) a 2005 Georgia conviction for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, and
(3) a 2007 Georgia conviction for aggravated assault. After applying the career
offender enhancement, the PSI calculated Bass’s total offense level as 34 and his
2
USCA11 Case: 19-15148 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 3 of 7
criminal history category as VI, which yielded a guidelines range of 262 to 327
months’ imprisonment.
Bass objected to the career offender enhancement. He argued that his 2005
Georgia conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine did not
qualify as a controlled substance offense and that his 2007 Georgia conviction for
aggravated assault did not qualify as a crime of violence. After considering Bass’s
objections, the district court concluded that both convictions qualified as predicate
offenses. Because Bass had at least two prior felony convictions for controlled
substance offenses or crimes of violence, the district court found that he was a
career offender. Applying the career offender guideline, the district court
determined that Bass’s guidelines range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment.
The court ultimately imposed a sentence substantially below this range,
sentencing Bass to 96 months’ imprisonment. After announcing the sentence, the
district court stated that it would have imposed the same sentence even if Bass
were not a career offender. According to the court, if Bass were not a career
offender, his guidelines range would have been 140 to 175 months’ imprisonment.
The court explained that even under this lower range, it would have imposed the
same sentence, stating “I would not have given you one day less than . . . the 96
months.” Doc. 97 at 33.1 This is Bass’s appeal.
1
“Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
3
USCA11 Case: 19-15148 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 4 of 7
II.
We review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate
offense for purposes of the career offender enhancement. See United States v.
Lange, 862 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2017).
III.
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant is eligible for the career
offender sentencing enhancement if he “has at least two prior felony convictions of
either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).
Bass argues that the district court erred in concluding that he had at least two prior
qualifying felony convictions. Bass does not dispute that his 2001 Alabama
conviction for distribution of controlled substances qualified as a controlled
substance offense for purposes of the career-offender enhancement. But Bass
claims that he had no second qualifying predicate conviction because, he says, his
2005 Georgia conviction for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine did not
qualify as a controlled substance offense and his 2007 Georgia conviction for
aggravated assault conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence. We need not
decide whether Bass’s Georgia aggravated assault conviction qualified as a crime
of violence because our precedent forecloses Bass’s argument that his Georgia
conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine did not qualify as a
controlled substance offense.
4
USCA11 Case: 19-15148 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 5 of 7
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a “controlled substance offense” is
an offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for
a term exceeding one year, that prohibits the manufacture, import,
export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance . . . or the
possession of a controlled substance . . . with intent to manufacture,
import, export, distribute, or dispense.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). Application Note 1 to the commentary to § 4B1.2 states that
this definition also includes attempt crimes. See id. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.1 (defining
“controlled substance offense” to “include the offenses of . . . attempting to
commit such offenses.”).
Bass acknowledges that Application Note 1 adds attempt crimes to the list of
controlled substance offenses. But, Bass says, this commentary to the Guidelines
cannot broaden the definition of a controlled substance offense because
“[c]ommentary should only interpret the guidelines, not replace or modify the
guidelines.” Appellant’s Br. at 15–16. He points to a recent en banc decision from
the Sixth Circuit holding that attempt crimes do not qualify as controlled substance
offenses for purposes of the career offender guideline. See United States v. Havis,
927 F.3d 382, 387 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc).
Bass’s argument is foreclosed by binding precedent: our decision in United
States v. Smith, 54 F.3d 690 (11th Cir. 1995). In Smith, a defendant who was
sentenced as a career offender appealed his sentence, arguing that a conviction for
attempting to commit a drug crime did not count as a predicate offense for
5
USCA11 Case: 19-15148 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 6 of 7
determining career offender status. Id. at 691. We rejected his challenge,
explaining that Application Note 1 to the commentary to § 4B1.2 stated that the
term “controlled substance offense” included the offenses of attempting to commit
narcotic crimes. Id. at 693. We held that this commentary was “authoritative
unless it violate[d] the Constitution or a federal statute, or [was] inconsistent with,
or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Because Application Note 1 did “not run afoul of the Constitution” and
was not “inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, sections 4B1.1 or
4B1.2,” we held that the commentary “constitute[d] a binding interpretation of the
term ‘controlled substance offense.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Neither this Court sitting en banc nor the Supreme Court has overruled Smith, so it
remains binding precedent and forecloses Bass’s challenge. See United States v.
Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Under the prior precedent
rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is
overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Because Bass raises no other argument that his conviction for attempted
manufacture of methamphetamine did not qualify as a controlled substance
offense, we conclude the district court did not err in treating this conviction as a
6
USCA11 Case: 19-15148 Date Filed: 10/15/2020 Page: 7 of 7
qualifying predicate offense and sentencing Bass under the career offender
enhancement. We affirm his sentence.2
AFFIRMED.
2
Bass also argues that the district court erred at sentencing in calculating his criminal
history points by assigning too many points to certain of his prior convictions. But because Bass
was sentenced as a career offender, his criminal history category was automatically set at VI,
regardless of his criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) (“A career offender’s criminal
history category in every case under this subsection shall be Category VI.”). Therefore, any
error in the district court’s calculation of Bass’s criminal history score was harmless.
7