USA v. Carlos German

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Carlos Antonio German. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11217

Date Filed: 02/23/2017

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11217
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20698-JAL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ANTONIO GERMAN,
a.k.a. Platano,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 23, 2017)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11217

Date Filed: 02/23/2017

Page: 2 of 6

Carlos German appeals his 70-month sentence, imposed after he pled guilty
to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
He contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on a base offense
level of 24 to calculate the guideline range because his prior Florida conviction of
burglary of a dwelling is not a conviction of a crime of violence under the
sentencing guidelines. He argues that his conviction is not an enumerated
conviction of a crime of violence and that the residual clause of the definition of
“crime of violence” is unconstitutionally vague. He maintains that the district
court’s procedural error warrants reversal and cannot be viewed as harmless.
We review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as a conviction of a
crime of violence. United States v. Estrada, 777 F.3d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015).
We may affirm a sentence “for any reason supported by the record, even if not
relied upon by the district court.” United States v. Hall, 714 F.3d 1270, 1271 (11th
Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). We review a sentence under the abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The base offense level for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm is
24 “if the defendant committed any part of the instant offense subsequent to
sustaining at least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a
controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1,

2

Case: 16-11217

Date Filed: 02/23/2017

Page: 3 of 6

comment. (n. 1) (referring to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) for the definition of “[c]rime of
violence”).
The term “crime of violence” means any offense under
federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding one year, that—
(1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person of
another, or
(2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion,
involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct
that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another.
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a); see also United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1193-94
(11th Cir. 2015) (referring to the final clause in the definition of “crime of
violence” as the residual clause).
For offenses committed on or before July 1, 2001,
“burglary” means entering or remaining in a dwelling, a
structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an
offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open
to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to
enter or remain.
Fla. Stat. § 810.02(1)(a). The Florida crime of burglary of a dwelling is “a crime
of violence under the residual clause . . . because it ‘involves conduct that presents
a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.’” Matchett, 802 F.3d at 1197
(quoting U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)).
We held that the sentencing guidelines cannot be unconstitutionally vague
because they are merely an advisory tool to assist sentencing judges in determining
3

Case: 16-11217

Date Filed: 02/23/2017

Page: 4 of 6

appropriate sentences. Id. at 1194-96. The vagueness doctrine “rests on a lack of
notice” and does not apply to these advisory guidelines because a defendant cannot
expect to receive a sentence within the applicable guideline range. Id. at 1194-95
(quotation omitted).
German’s Florida conviction of burglary of a dwelling is a conviction of a
crime of violence under the residual clause of the sentencing guidelines. See
Matchett, 802 F.3d at 1197. Binding precedent forecloses his contention that the
residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. See id. at 1194-96. German does not
dispute that he also has a prior felony conviction of a controlled-substance offense.
The district court did not err by relying on a base offense level of 24 for the
purpose of calculating the applicable guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2).
The Government asserts that we may also affirm on the grounds that the
district court in this case stated that it would have imposed the same sentence. We
will affirm a sentence based on harmless error in calculating the guideline range if
we know that the district court would have imposed the same sentence regardless
of its ruling on a guidelines issue, and the sentence is reasonable even if that issue
was decided in the defendant’s favor. United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349
(11th Cir. 2006). The defendant has the burden of establishing the
unreasonableness of the sentence had the court decided the guidelines issue in the
defendant’s favor. See id. at 1350.
4

Case: 16-11217

Date Filed: 02/23/2017

Page: 5 of 6

The district court determined that even if it erred by relying on a base
offense level of 24, a 70-month sentence was appropriate. The district court stated
that its decision was based upon German’s possession of two firearms, magazines,
and ammunition and his sale of those items to the confidential informant on two
different dates. The district court further based its decision on German’s
“extensive criminal history for just about half his life, since he’s 16 to 32.”
Finally, the district court referenced the § 3553(a) factors and stated that a 70month sentence was “sufficient, but not greater, than necessary, to reflect the need
for the sentence imposed to reflect just how serious this offense is, the need to
afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to promote respect for the law and
provide just punishment.”
A 70-month sentence was not an unreasonable sentence for German. As the
court pointed out, German has an adult criminal record that begins at age 16 with
the commission of a felony and includes convictions of burglary of a dwelling,
attempted burglary, and several controlled substance offenses. Thus even if the
district court erred in calculating the guidelines range, the error was harmless
because the sentence was reasonable.
AFFIRMED.

5

Case: 16-11217

Date Filed: 02/23/2017

Page: 6 of 6

ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the result of this decision. I write separately to note only that I
continue to respectfully disagree with our analysis in United States v. Matchett,
802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015), for the reasons I have previously expressed in
United States v. Matchett, 837 F.3d 1118, 1143 (11th Cir. 2016) (Rosenbaum, J.,
dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

6