United States v. Nathaniel Broughton

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 1 of 15

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12556

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NATHANIEL BROUGHTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00043-TWT-CCB-1

____________________

Before LAGOA, ABUDU, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Broughton appeals his 87-month sentence for pos-

session of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 2 of 15

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12556

§ 922(g)(1). On appeal, Broughton argues that his sentence is pro-

cedurally and substantively unreasonable. After careful review, we

affirm. We also remand for the limited purpose of allowing the

district court to correct a clerical error in the judgment.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2022, Broughton was charged, by indictment, with pos-

session of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). Broughton pled guilty in July 2023 without a plea

agreement.

Before sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presen-

tence investigation report (“PSI”) which described Broughton’s of-

fense conduct as follows. On June 15, 2021, an Atlanta, Georgia,

Police Department officer heard multiple gunshots coming from a

motel. The officer entered the motel parking lot and observed

Broughton holding a silver pistol. When the officer instructed

Broughton to drop the firearm, Broughton threw the gun over a

nearby fence and attempted to flee on foot. The officer hit Brough-

ton with a taser and detained him. Following his arrest, Broughton

stated that another individual, Lavonta Broughton (“Lavonta”) had

shot at him. Lavonta was also arrested at the motel.

Security footage video showed Broughton and Lavonta sit-

ting in a vehicle together, Lavonta then quickly exited the vehicle

and shot at Broughton before walking away, then Broughton

aimed his pistol at Lavonta and fired one shot in return. Further

investigation revealed that Broughton’s pistol had traveled in inter-

state commerce and that he was a convicted felon.

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 3 of 15

24-12556 Opinion of the Court 3

The PSI calculated Broughton’s base offense level to be 24,

under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2), because Broughton had at least two

previous felony convictions for crimes of violence or controlled

substance offenses. Under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), it then added

four levels because Broughton used or possessed a firearm in con-

nection with another felony offense—aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon. The PSI increased Broughton’s offense level to 34

under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e), because the offense of conviction was a violation of

§ 922(g) and Broughton had at least three prior convictions for vi-

olent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on different oc-

casions. The PSI then applied a 3-level total decrease for ac-

ceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)-(b), leading to a total

offense level of 31.

The PSI then assigned Broughton 23 criminal history points,

putting him in criminal history category VI. See U.S.S.G., Ch. 5,

pt. A. Relevant to this appeal, the PSI assigned Broughton points

for the following convictions under Georgia law: (i) three points

for 2005 convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana with

the intent to distribute; (ii) three points for a 2009 conviction for

aggravated assault; (iii) two points for a 2010 conviction for posses-

sion of cocaine with intent to distribute; (iv) one point for 2016 con-

victions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, possession of

a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm or knife

during the commission of a felony; (v) one point for 2015 convic-

tions for possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and pos-

session with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine; and

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 4 of 15

4 Opinion of the Court 24-12556

(vi) two points for a 2019 conviction for aggravated assault. Based

on some of these same convictions, the PSI concluded that Brough-

ton was an armed career criminal under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(e).

Broughton filed a sentencing memorandum arguing that he

did not qualify under the ACCA and that he should not receive a

sentence of more than 10 years. He also objected to the application

of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), he asserted

that his personal history was mitigating and relevant: he was born

to parents suffering from drug addiction who moved their family

from one abandoned house to the next without medical care, clean

clothing, running water, and electricity. He explained that his dif-

ficult upbringing, his mental and intellectual disabilities, and his

battles with substance abuse had strained his relationships and led

to numerous arrests and convictions. He asked for a 24-month sen-

tence, coupled with psychosocial rehabilitation and psychiatric

care.

The government, on the other hand, initially argued that the

court should impose an 180-month sentence under the ACCA. It

stated that it believed that, because Broughton did not admit to

having three prior offenses on different occasions at his plea hear-

ing, the ACCA arguably should not apply. Still, it urged the court

to follow impose an enhanced ACCA sentence anyway because

this Court’s precedent required the ACCA to be imposed automat-

ically.

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 5 of 15

24-12556 Opinion of the Court 5

At sentencing, the court stated that it carefully reviewed the

PSI and then it adopted the facts in the PSI, because no objections

had been made to them. The court then turned to the ACCA issue,

which the government and Broughton now agreed did not apply.

The court agreed as well, sustaining Broughton’s objection to the

imposition of the ACCA in light of Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S.

821 (2024), because Broughton had not admitted his prior qualify-

ing offenses had occurred on separate occasions. 1 However, the

court concluded Broughton’s base offense level was 24, under

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2), because his prior convictions qualified as

crimes of violence under the Guidelines. The court also sustained

Broughton’s objection to the four-level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

The court then calculated Broughton’s offense level using

the 2023 Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Applying a base offense

level of 24 and a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance

of responsibility, the court found Broughton’s total offense level to

be 21. The court then concluded that Broughton had 23 criminal

history points, putting him in a criminal history category of VI.

The court therefore found Broughton’s guideline range to be 77 to

1 In so ruling, the district court implicitly departed from our pre-Erlinger prec-

edent—such as United States v. Cobia, 41 F.3d 1473 (11th Cir. 1995) and United

States v. Gibson, 64 F.3d 617 (11th Cir. 1995)—which state that the ACCA’s en-

hanced penalties must be applied automatically, without regard to whether

the government seeks them. However, the government does not appeal that

decision nor argue that these cases remain good law. We therefore need not

and do not address those questions here.

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 6 of 15

6 Opinion of the Court 24-12556

96 months’ imprisonment. The parties did not object any further

to these calculations. Broughton then argued that a downward

variance was appropriate. He went over each § 3553(a) factor, par-

ticularly highlighting his unique history and characteristics, includ-

ing his difficult upbringing, intellectual deficits, schizophrenia and

bipolar disorder diagnoses, and physical challenges. He argued

that, in light of these unique circumstances, a sentence of

60 months was appropriate.

The government requested a sentence in the middle of the

Guidelines range. It highlighted the nature of Broughton’s offense,

noting that he had multiple felony convictions—including at least

one for being a felon in possession of a firearm—and the fact that,

while there was limited information about what happened,

Broughton’s firearm was discharged in this case. The government

acknowledged Broughton’s background and history; his illiteracy,

difficult upbringing; and poor decision-making skills; but it noted

that “those difficult deficits are going to be remaining in the future”

as well. It also highlighted that Broughton was 47 years old, his

criminal history was significant, there was a need to protect the

public, and a sentence of 87 months was reasonable. Broughton

gave an allocution, apologizing for his actions and asking for a light

sentence so he could be home with his family.

The court adopted the government’s recommendation and

imposed a sentence of 87 months’ imprisonment. The court stated

that a mid-range guideline sentence appropriately balanced the

§ 3553(a) factors, specifically, the nature and circumstances of

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 7 of 15

24-12556 Opinion of the Court 7

Broughton’s offense, his history and characteristics, and the need

for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, afford de-

terrence, promote respect for the law, protect the public, and pre-

vent unwarranted sentencing disparities. The court expressed its

sympathy for the conditions under which Broughton was brought

up, but concluded that “his extensive criminal record show[ed] that

the only way to prevent him from committing additional crimes

against the public is to put him in custody, and that, in [the court’s]

opinion, is the overwhelming reason for the sentence to be im-

posed in this case.”2 Broughton reiterated his objection to the cal-

culation of the base offense level and argued that his sentence was

not substantively reasonable under the circumstances. The court

overruled those objections. Broughton appealed.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We follow a “two-step process” when reviewing a sentence.

United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 935 (11th Cir. 2016). First, we

review the sentence for procedural reasonableness, determining

“whether the district court committed any significant procedural

error, such as miscalculating the advisory guideline range . . . , fail-

ing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain

the chosen sentence.” Id. at 936. In this step, we review de novo the

proper interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines.

2 The district court clarified that Broughton was receiving credit for time

served while in state custody, such that he would only be serving 52 more

months.

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 8 of 15

8 Opinion of the Court 24-12556

United States v. Pulido, 133 F.4th 1256, 1279 n.20 (11th Cir. 2025). In

this step, we review de novo “whether an offense is a ‘crime of vio-

lence,’” United States v. Hicks, 100 F.4th 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2024),

or a “controlled substance offense” under the Sentencing Guide-

lines, United States v. Bishop, 940 F.3d 1242, 1253 (11th Cir. 2019).

We are bound to follow our own prior binding precedent until it is

overruled by the Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc.

United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1228 (11th Cir. 2016).

In our second step of our two-step process, we determine

“whether the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the

totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors.” Trailer,

827 F.3d at 935–36. “We review the substantive reasonableness of

a sentence for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Butler,

39 F.4th 1349, 1354–55 (11th Cir. 2022). “In reviewing the [substan-

tive] reasonableness of a sentence, we will not substitute our own

judgment for that of the sentencing court and we will affirm a sen-

tence so long as the court’s decision was ‘in the ballpark of permis-

sible outcomes.’” Id. at 1355 (quoting United States v. Rosales-Bruno,

789 F.3d 1249, 1257 (11th Cir. 2015) (Opinion of E. Carnes, J.)).

A party arguing a sentence is unreasonable bears “the burden of

establishing the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and

the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324

(11th Cir. 2008). “[W]e have identified three ways in which a dis-

trict court can abuse its discretion” and “impos[e] a substantively

unreasonable sentence: (1) failing to properly consider a relevant

sentencing factor that was due significant weight, (2) giving signif-

icant weight to a factor that was not relevant, or (3) committing a

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 9 of 15

24-12556 Opinion of the Court 9

clear error of judgment by weighing the sentencing factors unrea-

sonably.” Butler, 39 F.4th at 1356; see also United States v. Irey,

612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (same).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Reasonableness

Broughton makes two procedural arguments. First, he ar-

gues that Georgia aggravated assault is broader than federal generic

aggravated assault, and it is therefore not a crime of violence under

the Guidelines. As part of this argument, he asserts that we have

never addressed the mens rea necessary to commit Georgia aggra-

vated assault and compared it with generic aggravated assault. Sec-

ond, he contends that “controlled substance” under the Guidelines

means a substance listed on the federal schedules under the Con-

trolled Substances Act, not merely substances prohibited by state

law—therefore his controlled substance offenses do not qualify.

Under our precedent, the district court did not err in con-

cluding that Broughton’s prior convictions for aggravated assault

under Georgia law qualified as “crimes of violence” under U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.2(a)(2), as the term is used in § 2K2.1(a)(2). Hicks, 100 F.4th

at 1297. In United States v. Morales-Alonso, we held that “the ele-

ments of aggravated assault [under Georgia law] are substantially

the same as the elements of generic aggravated assault,” meaning

that the defendant’s aggravated assault conviction satisfied the

Guidelines’ definition of a “crime[] of violence.” 878 F.3d 1311,

1316–20 (11th Cir. 2018). While we did not explicitly address mens

rea in Morales-Alonso, we later did so in Hicks. There, a defendant

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 10 of 15

10 Opinion of the Court 24-12556

argued that his two prior Georgia convictions for aggravated as-

sault with a deadly weapon did not qualify as “crimes of violence”

under §§ 2K2.1(a)(2) & 4B1.2(a)(2) because the mens rea require-

ment of that crime under Georgia law rendered it categorically

broader than the generic federal offense, as the term is used in the

Guidelines. 100 F.4th at 1298–99. We rejected that argument and

affirmed, holding that Morales-Alonso foreclosed the argument. Id.

at 1299–1301.

Similar to the defendant in Hicks, Broughton is arguing that

his prior convictions do not qualify as “crimes of violence” under

the Guidelines because of the Georgia statute’s mens rea element.

Id. at 1299. In light of Hicks, the district court was bound to con-

clude that the Georgia crime of aggravated assault is a “crime of

violence.” See id. at 1299–1301; White, 837 F.3d at 1228. Therefore,

we affirm on this issue.

Given that Broughton had prior aggravated assault convic-

tions under Georgia law that qualify as “crimes of violence” under

§ 2K2.1(a)(2), the district court correctly ruled that his base offense

level was 24. This was the correct base offense level notwithstand-

ing whether Broughton’s prior drug offenses qualified as a “con-

trolled substance offense.” See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). We there-

fore need not and do not address Broughton’s second procedural

argument, since it would not affect his Guidelines calculations. See

INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (explaining that, generally,

“courts . . . are not required to make findings on issues the decision

of which is unnecessary to the results they reach”).

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 11 of 15

24-12556 Opinion of the Court 11

B. Substantive Reasonableness

Broughton next argues his sentence is substantively unrea-

sonable. He contends that the district court did not address why a

mid-Guidelines sentence was appropriate, “instead of a low end

sentence.” He also notes that his health conditions, mental illness,

and intellectual limitations were all important aspects of his “his-

tory and characteristics” which warranted greater weight.

Under § 3553(a), a district court must impose a sentence

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to reflect the serious-

ness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just

punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence, and to

protect the public from future crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). In addition, a sentencing court must consider, among

other factors, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the his-

tory and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to avoid un-

warranted sentence disparities among similarly situated defend-

ants. Id.

While a district court must consider all relevant § 3553(a)

factors, “the weight given to each factor is committed to the sound

discretion of the district court,” and it may attach greater weight to

one factor over the others. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355; see United States

v. Olson, 127 F.4th 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2025) (“A district court does

not have to give all the factors equal weight . . . .”). A court’s “fail-

ure to discuss . . . ‘mitigating’ evidence” does not indicate that the

court “erroneously ‘ignored’ or failed to consider th[e] evidence in

determining [the defendant’s] sentence.” United States v. Amedeo,

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 12 of 15

12 Opinion of the Court 24-12556

487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007). Instead, a “court’s acknowledg-

ment that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’

arguments” is typically sufficient to show it has considered the is-

sues and arguments before it. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355 (citing United

States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009)). We “ordinar-

ily expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.”

Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324; see also United States v. Castaneda, 997

F.3d 1318, 1332 (11th Cir. 2021). Another indicator of a reasonable

sentence is a sentence that is well below the statutory maximum

for the crime. United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1364 (11th

Cir. 2014); Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324 (same).

Broughton has not borne his burden to show his sentence is

substantively unreasonable or that the district court abused its sig-

nificant discretion. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. As a threshold

matter, Broughton’s sentence was within his Guidelines range—

which, as we have explained, was correctly calculated—and well

below the statutory maximum of 10 years, which indicates reason-

ableness. Dougherty, 754 F.3d at 1364; Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324;

Castaneda, 997 F.3d at 1332. Indeed, Broughton’s sentence is far

shorter than any sentence which might have applied if he were sub-

ject to the ACCA, which, for similar reasons, suggests the district

court did not abuse its discretion and impose a “greater than nec-

essary” sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); see also id. § 924(e)(1).

While Broughton argues that the district court failed to ade-

quately consider his relevant mitigating evidence, the district court

discussed that evidence at the sentencing hearing and gave it

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 13 of 15

24-12556 Opinion of the Court 13

weight. See Amedeo, 487 F.3d at 833; Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355. To

the extent that Broughton argues that the district court should have

given this mitigating evidence more weight, the district court had

broad discretion to weigh relevant factors. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355;

Olson, 127 F.4th at 1276. Further, the district court reasonably

found aggravating factors, including Broughton’s extensive crimi-

nal history and the need to protect the public, and emphasized

them in reaching its sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

At bottom, the district court noted significant aggravating

factors and significant mitigating factors. The court did not abuse

its discretion and impose a sentence outside “the ballpark of per-

missible outcomes” by weighing these competing factors and se-

lecting a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines. Butler, 39 F.4th

at 1355 (quoting Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1257). Accordingly, we

affirm on this issue as well.

C. Clerical Error in the Judgment

Even where not raised by the parties, we may raise and cor-

rect clerical errors in district court judgments and remand with in-

structions to correct them. See, e.g., United States v. James, 642 F.3d

1333, 1343–44 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814,

822 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, the district court’s judgment cites

18 U.S.C. § 924(e), which is the sentencing provision of the ACCA. 3

3 See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (providing penalties for defendants “who violate[]

section 922(g) of this title and ha[ve] three previous convictions . . . committed on

occasions different from one another . . . .” (emphasis added)); Erlinger, 602 U.S. at

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 14 of 15

14 Opinion of the Court 24-12556

Yet, as summarized above, both Broughton and the government

agreed that Broughton was not subject to the ACCA at sentencing,

and the district court’s ruling was consistent with that mutual un-

derstanding. When there is a discrepancy between the written

judgment and a district court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence,

the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. Khoury,

901 F.2d 975, 978 (11th Cir. 1990); Patterson v. United States, 386 F.2d

142, 142–43 (5th Cir. 1967) 4; see also, e.g., United States v. Villano, 816

F.2d 1448, 1453 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (“The written judgment

and commitment order is not the sentence.”). Under these circum-

stances—where the court ruled that § 924(e) was not applicable—

the citation to § 924(e) in the judgment represents a clerical error,

not part of Broughton’s sentence. Khoury, 901 F.2d at 978; Patter-

son, 386 F.2d at 142–43. Therefore, we remand solely for the dis-

trict court to correct this error.

834 (“To trigger ACCA and expose him to longer prison terms, the govern-

ment had to prove that [the defendant’s] past included three convictions for

‘violent felon[ies]’ or ‘serious drug offense[s]’ that were ‘committed on occa-

sions different from one another.’” (second and third alterations in original)

(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1))).

4 All former Fifth Circuit decisions issued before the close of business on Sep-

tember 30, 1981, are binding preceding in this Court. Bonner v. City of Prichard,

661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

USCA11 Case: 24-12556 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 15 of 15

24-12556 Opinion of the Court 15

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained, we find no reversible error, so we

affirm Broughton’s sentence. We remand so that the district court

can fix a clerical error in the judgment.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.