USA v. Maurice M. ONeal

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13123
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00006-DHB-WLB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MAURICE M. ONEAL,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 6, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13123 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
The government appeals Maurice M. Oneal’s 120-month sentence imposed
after Oneal pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e). On appeal, the government argues that the district
court erred by imposing a sentence below the fifteen-year (180-month) statutory
mandatory minimum sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) given Oneal’s status
as an armed career criminal. After review, we vacate and remand for resentencing
consistent with this opinion.1
Under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), a defendant is subject to a
mandatory minimum fifteen-year sentence if he is convicted of violating 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) and he has three previous convictions for a violent felony or
serious drug offense. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). A district court is not authorized to
sentence a defendant below the statutory mandatory minimum unless the
government has filed a substantial assistance motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 or the defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358,
1360 (11th Cir. 2008). Although after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125
S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court applies the Sentencing Guidelines in an
advisory fashion, the district court remains bound by statutes designating
mandatory minimum sentences. Id. at 1362; see also United States v. Ciszkowski,
1 We review de novo the district court’s authority to impose a sentence below the statutory
mandatory minimum. United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2010).
Case: 12-13123 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
492 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Even after Booker, the district court is
bound by the statutory mandatory minimums.”).
Here, the district court found, and the parties do not dispute, that Defendant
Oneal’s prior two burglary convictions and two aggravated assault convictions
qualified as predicate offenses for purposes of the ACCA. Thus, Defendant Oneal
was subject to the ACCA’s fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Further, the parties do not dispute that Defendant Oneal was ineligible for
safety-valve relief and that the government did not file a substantial assistance
motion. In these circumstances and under our precedent, as Defendant Oneal
concedes, the district court was not authorized to impose a 120-month sentence,
below the ACCA’s fifteen-year mandatory minimum. See Castaing-Sosa, 530
F.3d at 1360.
For these reasons and based on our precedent, we must vacate Defendant
Oneal’s 120-month sentence and remand to the district court with instructions to
resentence Defendant Oneal in accordance with the ACCA’s mandatory minimum
fifteen-year sentence.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Case: 12-13123 Date Filed: 03/06/2013 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --