The opinion
USCA11 Case: 23-10973 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10973
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMOL MARQUISE CUYLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00036-JRH-BKE-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10973 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 2 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10973
Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jamol Cuyler appeals his 180-month imprisonment sentence
for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, arguing that the dis-
trict court erred in determining that he was subject to the Armed
Career Criminal Act’s enhanced statutory penalty. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e). A defendant convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is subject
to a minimum 15-year sentence of imprisonment if he has at least
three prior convictions “for a violent felony or a serious drug of-
fense, or both, committed on occasions different from one an-
other.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Cuyler argues that the district court
applied the wrong analysis to his prior Georgia terroristic threats
convictions and that those convictions do not qualify as violent fel-
onies under the ACCA in light of the Supreme Court’s plurality
opinion in Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021). We need
not address Cuyler’s arguments about Georgia’s terroristic threats
statute because the PSI, adopted without change by the district
court, concluded that three other convictions constituted violent
felonies under the ACCA. And because Cuyler failed to object to
the inclusion of those three felonies, we conclude under plain error
review that the district court’s determination of his armed career
criminal status should be affirmed.
I.
Normally, we review de novo whether a conviction qualifies
as a serious drug offense or violent felony for purposes of the
USCA11 Case: 23-10973 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 3 of 9
23-10973 Opinion of the Court 3
ACCA. See United States v. Seabrooks, 839 F.3d 1326, 1338 (11th Cir.
2016). But to preserve objections to sentencing determinations, a
defendant must clearly raise the objection in simple language such
that the trial court could not misunderstand it. See United States v.
Brown, 934 F.3d 1278, 1306 (11th Cir. 2019). Defendants must make
all their objections to the “manner in which the sentence was im-
posed at the initial sentencing hearing.” United States v. Canty, 570
F.3d 1251, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). We have also stated that a defend-
ant fails to preserve a legal objection for appeal “if the factual pred-
icates of an objection are included in the sentencing record but
were presented to the district court under a different legal theory.”
United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 819 (11th Cir. 2006). That is,
when a defendant’s objections at sentencing were “substantively
different” from the arguments raised on appeal, we review for plain
error. United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir.
2014). Under plain error, we will only reverse if an error was plain,
affected the substantial rights of the defendant, and seriously af-
fected the fairness of judicial proceedings. Id. at 822. And errors are
not plain if no controlling Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit prec-
edent establishes that an error occurred. Id.
At sentencing, Cuyler objected to the PSI’s inclusion of his
two convictions for terroristic threats in the ACCA enhancement
analysis. But in concluding that Cuyler “is considered to be an
armed career criminal,” the PSI identified three additional convic-
tions—burglary, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during
the commission of a crime. Now on appeal—and only in the reply
brief—Cuyler argues that his conviction for possessing a firearm
USCA11 Case: 23-10973 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 4 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10973
during the commission of a crime is not a predicate offense under
the ACCA. True, Cuyler objected to his armed career criminal sta-
tus at sentencing. But that objection concerned separate convic-
tions under a “substantively different” legal theory from the argu-
ments raised in the reply brief. We therefore review for plain error.
Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d at 821.
II.
A defendant convicted of a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is
subject to an enhanced sentence under the ACCA if he has at least
three previous convictions for violent felonies or serious drug of-
fenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). A violent felony includes any crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year that has
an element of the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force against the person of another. Id. § 924(e)(2)(B). When a de-
fendant has three or more predicate offenses, the district court
must impose a mandatory minimum imprisonment sentence of at
least fifteen years. See United States v. Symington, 781 F.3d 1308, 1313
(11th Cir. 2015).
In his reply brief, Cuyler presents three arguments for why
his conviction for possessing a firearm during the commission of a
crime is not a predicate offense. First, he argues that the district
court did not consider the conviction when determining his armed
career criminal status. Second, he contends that the government
did not address the conviction at sentencing, leaving Cuyler with-
out notice that it qualified as a predicate offense. And third, he ar-
gues that the government cannot now rely on the conviction
USCA11 Case: 23-10973 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 5 of 9
23-10973 Opinion of the Court 5
because it has not explained how the crime qualifies as a predicate
offense under the elements clause of the ACCA. We will address
each argument in turn.
III.
Cuyler’s first argument fails because the PSI included
Cuyler’s conviction for possessing a firearm during the commission
of a crime as an ACCA predicate offense in its advisory guideline
calculation, and the district court adopted the PSI’s calculations and
factual statements “without change.” The PSI concluded that
Cuyler “is considered to be an armed career criminal based on the
convictions [of] . . . two counts of terroristic threats and possession
of a firearm during the commission of a crime . . . bur-
glary . . . [and] armed robbery.” Accordingly, the PSI assigned an
offense level of 33. At sentencing, the district court overruled
Cuyler’s objection to the inclusion of the two terroristic threat con-
victions as predicate offenses because our holding in United States
v. Oliver, 962 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2020) (“Oliver III”) precluded that
argument. When discussing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors later
during the hearing, the district court also mentioned Cuyler’s con-
victions for burglary and armed robbery.
Cuyler asserts that the district court’s failure to explicitly dis-
cuss the conviction for possession of a firearm during the commis-
sion of a crime during the sentencing hearing is somehow fatal to
its inclusion as a predicate offense. But Cuyler cites no authority
that requires the district court to affirmatively list every predicate
offense on the record after the court adopted the PSI’s guideline
USCA11 Case: 23-10973 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 6 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10973
calculation that lists those predicate offenses. Because the PSI
clearly includes the prior conviction in its calculation and ACCA
analysis, and the district court adopted that calculation without
change, we conclude that the district court’s failure to explicitly
mention the conviction during the hearing is not fatal to its inclu-
sion as a predicate offense.
Cuyler’s second argument also fails because the PSI’s guide-
line calculation put Cuyler on notice that the firearm possession
conviction was included as an ACCA predicate offense, and the
government was not required to affirmatively address each predi-
cate offense at sentencing. Our holding in Tribue v. United States is
instructive. 929 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2019). The defendant in that
case also argued “that the government effectively waived reliance
on the use of any other prior convictions listed in the PSI.” Id. at
1330. Unlike Cuyler’s situation, however, the additional conviction
in Tribue was not included in the PSI’s ACCA analysis and calcula-
tion. Id. Nevertheless, we held that the government had not
waived reliance on the use of other convictions outside the three
identified as ACCA predicates in the PSI. Id. at 1332. We based our
holding on three grounds, all of which apply here. First, the defend-
ant never disputed the factual existence of the additional convic-
tion. Id. Second, although Cuyler objected to his ACCA status, he
did so on separate grounds unrelated to the additional conviction.
Id. And third, the government need not “prospectively address
whether each and every conviction listed in the criminal history
section of a PSI is an ACCA predicate in order to guard against po-
tential future changes in the law and avoid later claims that it has
USCA11 Case: 23-10973 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 7 of 9
23-10973 Opinion of the Court 7
waived use of those convictions as qualifying ACCA predicates.”
Id.
Cuyler objected only to the inclusion of two of the five iden-
tified predicate offense convictions, leaving three qualifying con-
victions for the ACCA enhancement unchallenged. The govern-
ment did not waive reliance on those three remaining convictions
by not arguing, in response to Cuyler’s objections to the convic-
tions for terroristic threats, that he “had more qualifying convic-
tions” that the district court could consider instead. Id. At sentenc-
ing, the government had no way of predicting that our holding in
Oliver III could be affected by the Supreme Court’s later decision in
Borden, as Cuyler now argues. Indeed, during sentencing, Cuyler
admitted that his objection to the inclusion of his convictions for
terroristic threats was foreclosed by Oliver III.
In previous cases, we have concluded that the government
waived reliance on prior convictions to support an enhanced
ACCA sentence. But in those cases, the government relied on a
separate offense for the first time on appeal that was not included
as one of the PSI’s three predicate offenses in its ACCA calculation.
See, e.g., Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, 738 F.3d 1253,
1258 (11th Cir. 2013), overruled on other grounds by McCarthan v. Dir.
of Goodwill Indus. Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (en
banc); United States v. Petite, 703 F.3d 1290, 1292 n.2 (11th Cir. 2013).
That is not this case. The PSI listed five predicate offenses, one of
which was the possession of a firearm during the commission of a
crime conviction. The government was not required to shore up
USCA11 Case: 23-10973 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 8 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 23-10973
the district court’s determination of Cuyler’s ACCA status by af-
firmatively reiterating the PSI’s guideline calculation. That is, the
government was not required to argue at sentencing that the three
remaining convictions constituted ACCA predicate offenses when
the PSI concluded they did, Cuyler did not object to that conclu-
sion, and the district court adopted the PSI’s calculation without
change.
Cuyler’s third and final argument—that the government
failed to explain how his conviction for possessing a firearm during
the commission of a crime qualifies as as a predicate offense—is
also unavailing. Because Cuyler failed to object to the PSI’s inclu-
sion of the conviction and the district court’s subsequent adoption
of the PSI, we review the ACCA determination for plain error. Un-
der that standard of review, “where the explicit language of a stat-
ute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no
plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court
or this Court directly resolving it.” United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319
F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003). Although he contends that his con-
viction for possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime
does not constitute a predicate offense, Cuyler has cited no Su-
preme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent holding that his con-
viction does not qualify as an ACCA predicate offense, nor are we
aware of any decisions. See United States v. Carter, 704 F. App’x 808
(11th Cir. 2017) (citing Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d at 1291). Cuyler
therefore fails to establish that the district court committed plain
error.
USCA11 Case: 23-10973 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/08/2024 Page: 9 of 9
23-10973 Opinion of the Court 9
IV.
Accordingly, the district court is AFFIRMED.