USA v. Gus Junior Butler, No. 17-12727 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 13, 2021.
Download PDF
Case: 17-12727 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-12727 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:16-cr-80199-KAM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GUS JUNIOR BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (March 6, 2018) Case: 17-12727 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 2 of 4 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Gus Butler appeals his 180-month sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). He had pleaded guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and 924(e), and possessing heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and § 841(b)(1)(C). On appeal, Butler argues that the district court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence under the ACCA; Butler says his previous Florida convictions for aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and domestic battery by strangulation are not qualifying predicate offenses. We review de novo whether a prior conviction is a predicate offense within the meaning of the ACCA. United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2009). We are bound to follow prior binding precedent unless and until it is overruled by this Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008). We have held that a Florida aggravated assault “conviction under [Fla. Stat. §] 784.021 will always include ‘as an element the . . . threatened use of physical force against the person of another,’ § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), and . . . thus qualifies as a 2 Case: 17-12727 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 3 of 4 violent felony for purposes of the ACCA.” Turner v Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328, 1338 (11th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015); see also United States v. Golden, 854 F.3d 1256, 1256-57 (11th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming Turner’s holding that a conviction for aggravated assault under Fla. Stat. § 784.021 qualifies under the elements clause of the ACCA). We have held that “a conviction for aggravated battery qualifies as a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA.” Turner, 709 F.3d at 1341; see also In re Rogers, 825 F.3d 1335, 1341 (11th Cir. 2016) (affirming Turner and holding that a conviction under Florida's aggravated battery statute categorically qualifies under the elements clause of the ACCA.”). We have also decided that “Florida's domestic-battery-by-strangulation statute qualifies as a ‘crime of violence’ under the elements clause” of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. United States v. Dixon, 874 F.3d 678, 682 (11th Cir. 2017). The analysis we use to determine whether a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under § 4B1.2 is essentially the same as the analysis used to determine what constitutes a crime of violence under the ACCA “because the definitions are substantially the same.” Id. at 680. The district court did not err in concluding that Butler’s prior convictions for aggravated assault under Fla. Stat. § 784.021, aggravated battery under Fla. Stat. 3 Case: 17-12727 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 4 of 4 § 784.045, and domestic battery by strangulation under Fla. Stat. § 784.041(2)(a) constituted violent offenses for purposes of his ACCA sentence enhancement. We have decided that violations of each of these Florida statutes qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA. See Golden, 854 F.3d at 1256-57; Rogers, 825 F.3d at 1341; Dixon, 874 F.3d at 682. We are bound to follow these prior panel decisions under the prior precedent rule. See Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d at 1236. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
