United States v. Stancil

4 F.4th 1193

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Jerome Curtis STANCIL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-12001

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 13, 2021

Holly Lynn Gershow, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, U.S. Attorney Service-Middle District of Florida, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lynn Palmer Bailey, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Susan Good Yazgi, Federal Public Defender's Office, Jacksonville, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Law Office of Rosemary Cakmis, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BRANCH, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

GRANT, Circuit Judge:

When Jerome Stancil was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, he already had three state-law drug convictions. According to the district court, those Virginia convictions triggered the Armed Career Criminal Act's mandatory minimum sentence: 15 years. Stancil appeals, arguing that his sentence was wrongfully enhanced because the state statute of conviction criminalizes conduct like sharing controlled substances. He also argues that his felon-in-possession conviction should not stand because the police officers only found him in possession of a firearm as a result of an illegal search. But because our precedents are clear that convictions under statutes like Virginia's qualify as predicates for an ACCA sentencing enhancement, and because the officers had probable cause to search Stancil's car, we find no error in the district court's judgment. We affirm.

I.

Sergeant Adam Ardizzoni of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office was running laser radar one night when he clocked a car traveling at 15 miles per hour over the speed limit.¹ He radioed nearby Officer Rafael Lugo with an alert about the vehicle's speed. Officer Lugo pulled the car over, and while he was running the tag, he saw the driver reach down several times. Under cover of his spotlight, Officer Lugo approached the passenger side of the car—where he saw that the driver was still reaching down. He radioed for backup, which arrived in the form of Sergeant Ardizzoni and another officer, Patrick Ivey.

No longer alone, Officer Lugo approached the driver's side window and made his first contact with the driver, Jerome Stancil. When Stancil lowered the window, Officer Lugo asked for his driver's license, but he also noticed something inside Stancil's car—the smell of marijuana. It was a familiar smell to Officer Lugo, who estimated that he had encountered it more than 20 times before in earlier traffic stops. The smell was also familiar to Sergeant Ardizzoni, who had received narcotics training and similarly testified to smelling marijuana when Stancil's window came down. Officer Lugo asked Stancil to step out of his car and ran Stancil's driver's license. That check revealed that Stancil was a convicted felon on probation.

While Officer Lugo checked Stancil's license, Officer Ivey searched the car. His apparent suspicion that he would find contraband was correct; he discovered a Taurus .40 caliber pistol loaded with ten rounds of ammunition under the driver's side floor mat. Officer Lugo handcuffed Stancil and walked him over to the backseat of the police car. After hearing the Miranda warning, Stancil decided to talk and admitted that the firearm was his.

A grand jury charged Stancil with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Stancil moved to suppress the firearm and ammunition, arguing that they were the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge, who conducted an evidentiary hearing where Officer Lugo, Sergeant Ardizzoni, and Stancil's son—who had arrived at the scene after the arrest—testified. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to suppress, and the district court adopted that recommendation.

Stancil waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to a stipulated bench trial, though he preserved his right to appeal the suppression decision. Among other things, Stancil stipulated that he was a convicted felon, that he knowingly possessed a pistol, that his pistol was manufactured in Brazil, and that his pistol qualified as a "firearm" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). Those stipulations were decisive for the district court, which found Stancil guilty.

Next came Stancil's sentencing hearing. The government presented three of Stancil's prior convictions, all of which came under Virginia Code § 18.2-248. The conduct underlying those convictions occurred in 1996, 1997, and 2004; the first two convictions were for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and the most recent was for manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin. The district court found that all three qualified as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which meant that Stancil was subject to a minimum sentence of 15 years. The court sentenced him to that minimum term of imprisonment. Stancil now appeals.

II.

Stancil raises two real issues on appeal. He first argues that the district court erred when it found that he was an armed career criminal. He next claims that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Stancil also raises various claims of legal error, but he acknowledges that they are foreclosed by our precedent.

A.

Stancil first contends that none of his prior convictions qualify as a "serious drug offense" under ACCA. We review this issue de novo. United States v. Robinson , 583 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2009). "When conducting our review, we are bound by federal law when we interpret terms in the ACCA and bound by state law when we interpret elements of state-law crimes." United States v. Conage , 976 F.3d 1244, 1249 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted).

Under ACCA, a person who violates § 922(g) and has three previous convictions for a "serious drug offense" that were "committed on occasions different from one another" is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). A "serious drug offense" includes "an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance" for which "a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law." Id. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).

We have construed those terms broadly. For one, our interpretation of "distributing" does not require "an exchange for value." Hollis v. United States , 958 F.3d 1120, 1122 (11th Cir. 2020). For another, we read "involving" to mean that a state statute "need not exactly match the specific acts listed in the ACCA's definition" for it to give rise to a serious drug offense. United States v. White , 837 F.3d 1225, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted); see also Shular v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 779, 782, 206 L.Ed.2d 81 (2020).

To determine whether a conviction under a state statute falls within those contours, we generally apply the categorical approach. White , 837 F.3d at 1229. That means we are not concerned about the specific facts of the defendant's prior convictions. Id. Instead, we consider only "the fact of the conviction and the statutory definition of the offense." Id. "When a state crime sweeps broader than ACCA's definitions, that crime cannot categorically qualify as an ACCA predicate." Beeman v. United States , 899 F.3d 1218, 1229–30 (11th Cir. 2018). In other words, we "must presume that the conviction rested upon the least of the acts criminalized by the statute." United States v. Oliver , 962 F.3d 1311, 1316 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted). But that presumption has limits: "[t]he inquiry into the minimum conduct criminalized by the state statute must remain within the bounds of plausibility." United States v. Dixon , 874 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2017).

Stancil argues that, whether or not his past crimes were themselves "serious drug offenses" under ACCA, the least culpable conduct under the statute of conviction is not. All three of his prior convictions were under Virginia Code § 18.2-248, which provides that it is unlawful to "manufacture, sell, give, distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture, sell, give or distribute a controlled substance." Va. Code § 18.2-248(A). According to Stancil, the least culpable conduct under that statute is giving or possessing with intent to give a controlled substance to another "only as an accommodation," without "intent to profit thereby from any consideration received."²

Id. § 18.2-248(D). In his telling, that is not a "serious drug offense," because "giving" or possessing with intent to "give" a controlled substance does not involve "manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute." See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).

We disagree. We were presented with a statute similar to § 18.2-248 in Hollis v. United States ; that defendant had prior convictions under Alabama Code § 13A-12-211(a), which provides that a person commits unlawful distribution of a controlled substance if he "sells, furnishes, gives away, delivers, or distributes" the substance. Ala. Code § 13A-12-211(a) ; see Hollis , 958 F.3d at 1123. There too "giving away" is the least culpable conduct under the statute. See Ala. Code § 13A-12-211(a). We nonetheless held that the defendant's prior convictions "categorically qualif[ied] as predicate offenses" under ACCA. Hollis , 958 F.3d at 1123. In other words, we found that any violation of the Alabama statute—including "giving away" a controlled substance—is a predicate serious drug offense under ACCA.

Another one of our precedents is similarly fatal to Stancil's case. In United States v. Robinson , Robinson received an ACCA enhancement because of his prior conviction under Alabama Code § 13A-12-213(a). 583 F.3d at 1294–95. On its face, that statute does more than just criminalize possession with intent to...