USA v. Aldrick Lott

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Aldrick James Lott. 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: 16-11993

Date Filed: 05/08/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11993
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-14077-RLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALDRICK JAMES LOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 8, 2017)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11993

Date Filed: 05/08/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Aldrick James Lott raises three arguments aimed at demonstrating that the
district court erred in sentencing him. He maintains the district court erred by (1)
enhancing his sentence pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §
924(e)(1), because he had no violent felonies or serious drug offenses; (2)
improperly relying on non-Shepard 1 documents when sentencing him; and (3)
improperly enhancing his sentence with convictions that were neither charged in
the indictment nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon review, we affirm.
Mr. Lott concedes that this Court’s binding precedent forecloses the
argument that his prior convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute (in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)) do not qualify as serious drug
offenses under the ACCA. See United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th
Cir. 2014). He also acknowledges that his conviction for resisting arrest with
violence (in violation of Fla. Stat. § 843.01) qualifies as a violent felony under the
elements clause of the ACCA. See United States v. Hill, 799 F.3d 1318, 1323
(11th Cir. 2015).

Although Mr. Lott believes Smith and Hill were wrongly

decided, we are bound by those decisions.
Binding precedent also bars Mr. Lott’s argument that the prior convictions
used to enhance his sentence had to be charged in the indictment and proven
beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. See, e.g., Smith, 775 F.3d at 1265 (“The

1

Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005).
2

Case: 16-11993

Date Filed: 05/08/2017

Page: 3 of 3

Constitution does not require that the government allege in its indictment and
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [a defendant] had prior convictions for a
district court to use those convictions for purposes of enhancing a sentence.”)
(alterations and quotation marks omitted). So we reject that argument too.
Finally, there is no evidence supporting Mr. Lott’s contention that the
district court improperly relied on non-Shepard documents at sentencing to
determine whether his prior convictions qualified as predicates under the ACCA.
This claim is predicated on the argument that this Court’s published cases wrongly
concluded that his Florida convictions categorically qualify under the ACCA. See
Hr. Tr., D.E. 69, at 6–11. The district court, however, merely followed these
binding Eleventh Circuit cases.
AFFIRMED.

3