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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 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 rep-
resentation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the en-
tire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of
the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the en-
tire 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. Ea-
sley’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 in-
tent 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 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 3 of 3
21-12695 Opinion of the Court 3
possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute therefore con-
stituted ACCA predicate offenses.
Although we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm Ea-
sley’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. How-
ever, 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. Sec-
tion 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 correct-
ing the judgment.