USA v. Demonte Easley, No. 21-12695 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 21-12695 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12695 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DEMONTE EASLEY, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cr-00040-TKW-5 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12695 2 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 21-12695 Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Sheryl Lowenthal, appointed counsel for Demonte Easley on direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm Easley’s convictions and sentences. In coming to this conclusion, we have considered Mr. Easley’s response to his counsel’s motion to withdraw. The problem for Mr. Easley is that we have held that possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 constitutes a “serious drug offense” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A) (defining a “serious drug offense” in part as an offense under state law “involving manufacturing, distributing, or possession with intent to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance”). See United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Jackson, 55 F.4th 846, 861-62 (11th Cir. 2022). And, as we noted in Jackson, the Supreme Court has affirmed one of our decisions holding that a conviction under § 893.13 is a “serious drug offense.” See Shular v. United States, 140 S.Ct. 779, 784, 787 (2020). Mr. Easley’s prior convictions under § 893.13 for distribution of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship and for USCA11 Case: 21-12695 21-12695 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute therefore constituted ACCA predicate offenses. Although we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm Easley’s convictions and sentences, there is a clerical error in his final judgment of conviction. We may sua sponte raise the issue of a clerical error in a judgment and remand with instructions to correct the error. See United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir. 2006). The superseding indictment and Easley’s plea agreement state in Count 1 that Easley violated 21 U.S.C. § 846 by conspiring to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. However, the district court lists 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and 841(b)(1)(B)(i), as the statutes of conviction on Count 1. Section 846 punishes conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, and the district court’s omission of a citation to it appears to be a clerical error. Thus, we remand to the district court with instructions to amend the judgment of conviction to correct the clerical error. Motion to withdraw GRANTED, convictions and sentences AFFIRMED, and REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment.
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.
