USA v. Jermaine Lee Walker

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12969
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERMAINE LEE WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cr-00040-RH-MAF-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12969 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12969
Before ROSENBAUM, L UCK , and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM:
Jermaine Lee Walker appeals his 262-month prison sentence
for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon. He
argues the district court erred in concluding that three of his four
prior felony convictions—two for aggravated battery with a deadly
weapon and one each for arson and aggravated assault on a law
enforcement officer—were qualifying violent felonies under the
Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). For two reasons,
we affirm.
I.
First, “a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other
trial proceeding invited by that party.” United States v. Ross, 131 F.3d
970, 988 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation and quotations omitted). This
includes a party’s challenge to the district court’s ruling that his
prior convictions are qualifying offenses under the Armed Career
Criminal Act. See, e.g., United States v. Innocent, 977 F.3d 1077, 1084–
85 (11th Cir. 2020).
For example, in Innocent, the defendant argued his 2000 Flor-
ida conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm was not a vio-
lent felony. Id. We concluded the argument was “waived” be-
cause, at his sentencing hearing, the defendant conceded that ag-
gravated assault with a firearm was a crime of violence and he did
qualify for a sentence under the Act. Id. at 1085. “The doctrine of
USCA11 Case: 22-12969 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-12969 Opinion of the Court 3
invited error,” we held, “prevent[ed] us from considering the argu-
ments [the defendant] expressly disclaimed before the district
court.” Id. See also United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th
Cir. 2006) (declining under invited error rule to review whether de-
fendant’s term of supervised release was unlawful because defense
counsel asked the district court to impose a term of supervised re-
lease); United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1290 (11th Cir. 2003)
(applying invited error doctrine where defense counsel “affirma-
tively stipulated” to the admission of evidence); United States v. Sil-
vestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (applying invited error
doctrine where counsel stated that proposed jury instructions were
“acceptable” and “covered all the bases”).
Here, Walker invited any error the district court may have
made in ruling he had three qualifying violent felony convictions
under the Act. In his objections to the presentence investigation
report, Walker admitted that, even without the aggravated assault
conviction, “there remain[ed] three qualifying offenses.” And at
the sentencing hearing, Walker again admitted that his arson con-
viction was a qualifying felony. When the district court asked
whether “three” of Walker’s “offenses [were] qualifying predicates,
the two aggravated batteries and the arson,” Walker answered,
“[y]es, sir, that’s correct.” He agreed he did “have the three” qual-
ifying felonies. As in Innocent, the invited error doctrine “prevents
us from considering” Walker’s “arguments”—that his prior convic-
tions are not qualifying convictions—that he “expressly disclaimed
before the district court.” See Innocent, 977 F.3d at 1085.
USCA11 Case: 22-12969 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12969
II.
Second, under our binding precedent, Walker had three
qualifying violent felony convictions. His aggravated assault con-
viction was a violent felony under the Act. See Somers v. United
States, 66 F.4th 890, 896 (11th Cir. 2023) (“[W] e hold that aggravated
assault under Florida law categorically qualifies as a ‘violent felony’
under the ACCA’s elements clause.”). So that’s the first qualifying
conviction. And his aggravated battery with a deadly weapon con-
victions were violent felonies. See Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI
(Medium), 709 F.3d 1328, 1341–42 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that ag-
gravated battery, when committed with a deadly weapon, is a vio-
lent felony under the elements clause of the Act), abrogated on other
grounds by Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015); In re Rogers,
825 F.3d 1335, 1341 (11th Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have held that a convic-
tion under Florida’s aggravated battery statute categorically quali-
fies under the elements clause.”). So those are the second and third
qualifying convictions. Because Walker had three prior violent fel-
ony convictions, the district court did not err in sentencing him un-
der the Act.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-12969 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --