USA v. Kedrick Hughes

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Kedrick Howard Hughes. 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: 16-12297

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12297
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20990-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KEDRICK HOWARD HUGHES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 8, 2017)

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-12297

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Kedrick Howard Hughes appeals his total 262-month sentence, after
pleading guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1), and one count of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On
appeal, Hughes argues that the district court erred in finding that his Florida
aggravated assault conviction was a violent felony under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”) or a crime of violence under the career offender
Guideline. He also argues the district court erred in finding that his Florida
possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver convictions were serious drug
offenses under the ACCA and controlled substance offenses under the career
offender Guidelines, but concedes that precedent forecloses his argument. After
review, 1 we affirm.
I. DISCUSSION
Hughes’ argument that his Florida aggravated assault conviction is not a
violent felony is foreclosed by our decision in Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI
(Medium), 709 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2013), abrogated in part on other grounds by
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). There, we stated unequivocally
that a conviction under Fla. Stat. § 784.021, of which Hughes was convicted, “will

1

We review de novo whether a prior conviction is a violent felony or a serious drug
offense within the meaning of the ACCA. United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334, 1341 (11th
Cir. 2014).
2

Case: 16-12297

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Page: 3 of 4

always include as an element the . . . threatened use of physical force against the
person of another, . . . and thus qualifies as a violent felony for purposes of
[§ 924(e)(2)(B)(i)] of the ACCA.” Turner, 709 F.3d at 1338 (quotation omitted).
On this point, Turner has not been abrogated by intervening Supreme Court
decisions or overruled by this Court en banc. See United States v. Archer, 531
F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (restating prior panel rule); United States v.
Golden, 854 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2017) (addressing the same argument and
finding that it remains foreclosed by Turner). Hughes’ argument that his Florida
aggravated assault conviction is not a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1
fails for the same reason. Id. (“Although Turner addressed the ‘elements’ clause of
the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), that clause is identical to the elements
clause of § 4B1.2(a)(1). As a result, Turner is binding.” (citing United States v.
Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 940 (11th Cir. 2016))).
Second, as Hughes concedes in his brief, we also have precedent that defeats
his contention that his convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine
are not “serious drug offense[s],” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A), or “controlled
substance offense[s],” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). See United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d
1262, 1266–68 (11th Cir. 2014). The district court properly determined that

3

Case: 16-12297

Date Filed: 06/08/2017

Page: 4 of 4

Hughes had three predicate offenses and therefore qualified for the ACCA
enhancement and career offender enhancement under the Guidelines. 2
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

2

Thus, we need not address the Government’s argument that Hughes waived his right to
appeal this issue.
4