United States v. Kwamane Lenard Coleman , 563 F. App'x 740 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •              Case: 13-13669   Date Filed: 04/23/2014   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 13-13669
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00492-WJC-TGW-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    KWAMANE LENARD COLEMAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (April 23, 2014)
    Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kwamane Lenard Coleman appeals the mandatory 15-year sentence he
    received pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C.
    Case: 13-13669      Date Filed: 04/23/2014   Page: 2 of 4
    § 924(e), after being convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). On appeal, Coleman argues that
    the District Court’s use of his juvenile adjudications as qualifying convictions
    under the ACCA violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
    under the Eighth Amendment. Relying on two Supreme Court cases, Graham v.
    Florida 1 and Miller v. Alabama, 2 which held that condemning juveniles to life
    imprisonment without the possibility of release was cruel and unusual punishment,
    Coleman argues that the District Court’s reliance on juvenile adjudications to
    enhance adult sentences mandatorily was unconstitutional because it prevented the
    court from considering that the conduct occurred when he was a juvenile.
    We review de novo the legality of a sentence under the Eighth Amendment.
    United States v. McGarity, 
    669 F.3d 1218
    , 1255 (11th Cir. 2012). In the case of a
    felon in possession of a firearm, if he has three previous convictions for a violent
    felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from
    one another, the statutory minimum term of imprisonment is 15 years. 18 U.S.C.
    § 924(e)(1).
    The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S.
    Const. amend. VIII. In evaluating an Eighth Amendment challenge in a non-
    capital case, we must determine whether the sentence imposed is grossly
    1
    
    560 U.S. 48
    , 
    130 S. Ct. 2011
    , 
    176 L. Ed. 2d 825
    (2010).
    2
    567 U.S. __, 
    132 S. Ct. 2455
    ,183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012).
    2
    Case: 13-13669     Date Filed: 04/23/2014   Page: 3 of 4
    disproportionate to the offense committed. United States v. Johnson, 
    451 F.3d 1239
    , 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2006). If a sentence is within the limits imposed by
    statute, it is generally not cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. 
    Id. at 1243.
    In addition, a sentence that is not otherwise cruel and unusual does not
    become so just because it is mandatory. United States v. Raad, 
    406 F.3d 1322
    ,
    1324 (11th Cir. 2005).
    Generally, youthful offender convictions can qualify as predicate offenses
    for sentence enhancements under the ACCA. United States v. Wilks, 
    464 F.3d 1240
    , 1243 (11th Cir. 2006). Further, it does not violate the Eighth Amendment
    for an adult offender to receive a mandatory life sentence based on prior
    convictions for offenses committed when the offender was 17 years old. United
    States v. Hoffman, 
    710 F.3d 1228
    , 1231-33 (11th Cir. 2013). We explained that
    “[n]othing in Miller suggests that an adult offender who has committed prior
    crimes as a juvenile should not receive a mandatory life sentence as an adult, after
    committing a further crime as an adult.” 
    Id. at 1233
    (emphasis in original).
    Coleman’s sentence of 15 years, for a crime he committed at age 22, is not
    cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. An
    intervening Supreme Court decision overrules one of our decisions only if it is
    directly on point. 
    Wilks, 464 F.3d at 1243
    . Contrary to Coleman’s arguments,
    Graham and Miller do not apply to this case because, in both of those cases, the
    3
    Case: 13-13669   Date Filed: 04/23/2014   Page: 4 of 4
    Court focused on why it would be cruel and unusual for a juvenile to face a
    mandatory life sentence. Graham, 
    560 U.S. 48
    , 
    130 S. Ct. 2011
    ; Miller, 567 U.S.
    __, 
    132 S. Ct. 2455
    . Nothing in either case suggested that an adult offender who
    committed prior crimes as a juvenile should not receive a mandatory 15-year
    sentence as an adult. Finally, since it does not violate the Eighth Amendment for
    an adult offender to receive a mandatory life sentence based on prior convictions
    for offenses committed when the offender was a juvenile, it follows that a less
    severe mandatory sentence of 15 years also would not violate the Eighth
    Amendment. 
    Hoffman, 710 F.3d at 1233
    . The District Court was required to
    impose the mandatory minimum 15-year sentence under the ACCA. Accordingly,
    is judgment is
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-13660

Citation Numbers: 563 F. App'x 740

Judges: Martin, Per Curiam, Pryor, Tjoflat

Filed Date: 4/23/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023