UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES EVANS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
FARRIS, Circuit Judge: Evans contends that his conviction is not a controlled substance offense because it involved the delivery of chalk rather than cocaine. Prior circuit authority has considered and answered the precise questions raised by his appeal. There is no dispute that Evans pleaded guilty to an offense covered by the controlled substance statute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a)(2), we look only to the elements of the crime of conviction and not the conduct underlying the crime. United States v. Lipsey, 40 F. 3d 1200, 1201 (11th Cir.1994); See also United States v. Frazier, 89 F. 3d 1501 (11th Cir.1996).
A conviction for attempt required proof only that Evans possessed the mens rea required for the underlying-crime and took a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. United States v. Carothers, 121 F. 3d 659, 661 (11th Cir.1997).
A defendant is a “career offender” if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. These requirements were met here. AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Lindon Amede, 977 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 2020)…tantive offense. 21 U.S.C. § 846. “A conviction for attempt require[s] proof only that [the defendant] possessed the mens rea required for the underlying crime and took a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” United States v. Evans, 358 F.3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir. 2004). This Court has held that “[t]he mens rea required for a conviction under section 841(a)(1) is knowledge, not willfulness.” United States v. Joseph, 709 F.3d 1082, 1102 (11th Cir. 2013); United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389,…
-
Wimbush v. United States (M.D. Fla. 2024)…ffirming the career offender enhancement because the defendant was convicted of "a felony controlled substance offense under §§ 841(a), 841(b), and 846" and had at least two prior felony controlled substance offenses) (citing United States v. Evans, 358 F.3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir. 2014)). Wimbush cannot show counsel was ineffective for not advancing this meritless (and frivolous) claim. See Brewster v. Hetzel, 913 F.3d 1042, 1056 (11th Cir. 2019) ("Defense counsel . . . need not make meritless motions or lodg…
-
Moore v. United States (M.D. Fla. 2023)…1266–68 (11th Cir. 2014). And, at the time of Petitioner’s sentencing, a federal conviction under sections 841(a) or 846 clearly qualified as a “controlled substance offense” under the career offender guidelines as well. See United States v. Evans, 358 F. 3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir. 2004) (finding that an offense covered by sections 841(a)(1) and 846 qualified as a controlled substance offense). This means that counsel could not have succeeded in arguing that Petitioner’s predicate convictions were impr…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Frazier, 89 F.3d 1501 (11th Cir. 1996)
- United States v. Lipsey, 40 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 1994)
- United States v. Carothers, 121 F.3d 659 (11th Cir. 1997)