United States v. Robert Coleman Quarles

USCA11 Case: 20-14554 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14554

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT COLEMAN QUARLES,

Defendant- Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00107-DHB-BKE-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-14554 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 2 of 7

2 Opinion of the Court 20-14554

Before LUCK, LAGOA and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Robert Quarles appeals his sentence imposed by

the district court following his guilty plea to the charge of being a

felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that the government

failed to prove that he was convicted of felony obstruction of an

officer and, therefore, that the district court erred in applying an

enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”)

based on exhibits attached to the Presentence Investigation Report

(“PSI”) that was filed by the probation office. Having read the par-

ties’ briefs and reviewed the record, we affirm Quarles’s sentence.

I.

We review claims that the district court erred in applying

sentencing enhancements under a two-pronged standard. United

States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235, 1247 (11th Cir. 2008). Factual

findings underlying the application of an enhancement are re-

viewed for clear error. Id. We review de novo the application of

those facts to the law. Id. at 1247-48. We also review de novo

whether a prior conviction is a violent felony under the ACCA.

United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334, 1341 (11th Cir. 2014).

“To preserve an issue for appeal, one must raise an objection

that is sufficient to apprise the trial court and the opposing party of

the particular grounds upon which appellate relief will later be

sought.” United States v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003, 1011 (11th Cir.

USCA11 Case: 20-14554 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 3 of 7

20-14554 Opinion of the Court 3

2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Plain error review

applies to a sentencing challenge raised for the first time on appeal.

United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1307 (11th Cir. 2005).

To establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error,

(2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. Id. If all three

factors are established, we may exercise our discretion to correct

the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public rep-

utation of judicial proceedings. Id. An error is plain if it is clearly

contrary to settled law. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325,

1330-31 (11th Cir. 2005).

The sentencing court’s factual findings may be based on ev-

idence presented at the sentencing hearing or undisputed state-

ments in the PSI. United States v. Polar, 369 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th

Cir. 2004). When a defendant disputes a statement in the PSI, the

government has the burden of proving the disputed fact by a pre-

ponderance of the evidence. United States v. Little, 864 F.3d 1283,

1290 (11th Cir. 2017). The government must satisfy its burden with

“reliable and specific evidence.” United States v. Martinez, 584

F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). The

preponderance standard requires only that the factfinder believes

that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.

United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). “Ab-

sent a stipulation or agreement between the parties, an attorney’s

factual assertions alone do not constitute evidence” upon which a

sentencing court may rely. United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d

1299, 1305 (11th Cir. 2013). If a district court selects a sentence

USCA11 Case: 20-14554 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 4 of 7

4 Opinion of the Court 20-14554

based on a fact for which no record evidence exists, that finding is

clearly erroneous, and the sentence is procedurally unreasonable.

See United States v. Barner, 572 F.3d 1239, 1251 (11th Cir. 2009).

II.

The ACCA provides that any person who violates 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g) and has at least three prior convictions for violent felonies

or serious drug offenses that were committed on different occa-

sions is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’ im-

prisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Under the “elements clause” of

the ACCA, a “violent felony” is defined as any crime punishable by

a term of imprisonment exceeding one year that “has as an element

the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against

the person of another.” Id. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i); United States v. Fritts,

841 F.3d 937, 939 (11th Cir. 2016).

To determine whether a predicate offense qualifies as a vio-

lent felony under the elements clause, courts apply either the cate-

gorical or the modified categorical approach. Mathis v. United

States, 579 U. S. 500, 504-06, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2248-49 (2016). The

modified categorical approach, which applies when a statute is di-

visible into multiple crimes, allows courts to look to a limited class

of documents to determine the defendant’s crime of conviction. Id.

at 505-06, 136 S. Ct. at 2249. Those documents are “the charging

document, the . . . plea agreement or transcript of colloquy be-

tween judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea

was confirmed by the defendant, or . . . some comparable judicial

record of this information.” Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13,

USCA11 Case: 20-14554 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 5 of 7

20-14554 Opinion of the Court 5

26, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1263 (2005). The documents must speak plainly

in establishing whether the defendant necessarily committed the

qualifying crime because there is a demand for certainty in deter-

mining whether a defendant was convicted of a qualifying offense.

United States v. Gandy, 917 F.3d 1333, 1340 (11th Cir. 2019).

III.

Quarles contends on appeal that the district court erred in

applying the ACCA enhancement because the government did not

meet its burden of showing that the enhancement applied based on

his state conviction for obstruction of a law enforcement officer.

At sentencing, Quarles objected to the enhancement because the

Georgia Crime Information Center (“GCIC”) background report

listed his conviction as a misdemeanor, although the government

argued that it was a felony based on the certified copy of conviction

it submitted to the probation officer. Quarles did not dispute the

existence of his conviction but argued there was a discrepancy be-

tween the GCIC report and the certified copy of conviction that

the government presented. Due to this discrepancy, Quarles ar-

gues that the district court erred in applying the enhancement.

A review of the record indicates that the government pro-

vided a certified copy of conviction to the probation office in re-

sponse to Quarles’s objections to the PSI. The government dis-

cussed the certified copy of conviction at the sentencing hearing.

It is apparent from the transcript of the sentencing hearing that the

district court had a copy of it because the district court noted that

the conviction document did not mention that Quarles was

USCA11 Case: 20-14554 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 6 of 7

6 Opinion of the Court 20-14554

sentenced to a misdemeanor. Rather, the certified copy of convic-

tion indicated that Quarles was convicted of a felony because he

was charged by indictment, the state convened a grand jury to hear

the case, and the trial court sentenced him to three years’ proba-

tion. Because the district court found that the state obstruction

charge qualified as a felony, it applied the enhancement under the

ACCA.

Under Georgia’s obstruction statute,

[w]hoever knowingly and willfully resists, ob-

structs, or opposes any law enforcement officer . . . in

the lawful discharge of his or her official duties by of-

fering or doing violence to the person of such officer

. . . is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction

thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less

than one nor more than five years.

O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(b) (emphasis added). We have held

that “the Georgia crime of felony obstruction of justice categori-

cally meets the ‘use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical

force’ requirement of the elements clause of the ACCA.” United

States v. Brown, 805 F.3d 1325, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2015) (conclud-

ing that the element of offering or doing violence in O.C.G.A. § 16-

10-24(b) “is enough to satisfy the elements clause of the ACCA”).

“Felony” is defined under Georgia law as “a crime punishable . . .

by imprisonment for more than 12 months.” O.C.G.A. § 16-1-3(5).

USCA11 Case: 20-14554 Date Filed: 07/21/2022 Page: 7 of 7

20-14554 Opinion of the Court 7

As an initial matter, plain error review applies to Quarles’s

claim that the district court erred in applying the ACCA enhance-

ment because the government failed to submit Shepard documents

at the sentencing hearing. The record indicates that Quarles did

not raise this specific objection below. We also apply plain error

review to Quarles’s claim that the district court erred in consider-

ing the certified copy of conviction because the government did

not submit it at the sentencing hearing. Quarles did not lodge this

specific objection with the district court at sentencing. We con-

clude that Quarles cannot demonstrate that the district court

plainly erred on either of these claims.

Based on the record, we conclude that the district court did

not err in determining that the government had met its burden of

showing that Quarles was convicted of felony obstruction and,

therefore, that the ACCA enhancement applied. The district court

relied on the certified copy of conviction which noted that the

charge was a felony. The district court also reasoned that because

Quarles was charged by indictment, the state convened a grand

jury to hear the case, and the state court sentenced him to three

years’ probation, the conviction was a felony conviction pursuant

to Georgia law and satisfied the requirements for sentence en-

hancement under the ACCA. Accordingly, for the aforementioned

reasons, we affirm the district court’s application of the ACCA en-

hancement to Quarles’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.