U.S. v. Spears

63 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Collins

    No. 18-12431 (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2019)

    Id. We concluded in Wilks that Roper did not overrule our prior decisions holding that youthful offender convictions can qualify as predicate offenses for sentence-enhancement purposes; rather, we held, whether the enhancements were proper continued to be controlled by United States v. Pinion, 4 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 1993), and United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2006). See Wilks, 464 F.3d at 1243.

  2. Cray v. United States

    Case No.: 3:13-cv-1246-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    The Court noted that circuit precedent bound it to recognize that a prior conviction obtained in adult court must count toward the ACCA enhancement, even if the defendant was a minor when he committed the underlying offense. Sentencing Tr. II at 5-6; accord United States v. Cray, 488 F. App'x 452, 453-54 (11th Cir. 2012) ("We have written that a prior conviction where the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offense conduct 'counts towards ACCA enhancement' where the government prosecutes the defendant as an adult.") (citing United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358, 1360-61 (11th Cir. 2006)). As such, the Court overruled Cray's objection to the application of the ACCA. Sentencing Tr. II at 5-6.

  3. Spears v. U.S.

    Case No. 2:07-cv-648-FtM-29SPC, Case No. 2:03-cr-134-FtM-29SPC (M.D. Fla. Dec. 24, 2008)

    On March 30, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's sentence, but remanded for attachment of the sentencing hearing transcript to the presentence report. United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2006). Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 2, 2006.

  4. U.S. v. Louissaint

    407 F. App'x 378 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    We have also held that the ACCA includes as a "conviction" a crime committed by a juvenile who was tried as an adult if the crime otherwise meets the definition of a "violent felony" (which includes "any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year"). See United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Wilks, 464 F.3d 1240, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2006). Florida law determines whether Louissaint's convictions qualify as "violent felonies" under the ACCA.

  5. U.S. v. Parrish

    312 F. App'x 297 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    And we review de novo a district court's determination of whether two crimes constitute a single criminal episode or two separate felonies for purposes of section 924(e). United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2006). The ACCA provides that "[i]n the case of a person who violates section 922(g) . . . and has three previous convictions by any court . . . for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall be . . . imprisoned not less than fifteen years."

  6. U.S. v. Wright

    275 F. App'x 827 (11th Cir. 2008)

    We review de novo legal questions concerning the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 264, 166 L.Ed.2d 204 (2006). We also review de novo the district court's application of Rule 36. United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004).

  7. U.S. v. Wilks

    464 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2006)   Cited 117 times
    Holding that Florida youthful-offender convictions "can qualify as a predicate offenses for sentence enhancement"

    Id. at 944-45. In United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358, 1360-61 (11th Cir. 2006), we held that a defendant's robbery conviction, for a crime committed when he was seventeen years old, counted towards ACCA enhancement because he was prosecuted as an adult and the offense was punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. On May 12, 1997, a Florida circuit court twice convicted Wilks as a youthful offender.

  8. United States v. Millender

    CASE NO. 3:11-cr-10-LAC-CJK (N.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    This would indicate only one criminal episode.McCloud, 818 F.3d at 597-98 (emphasis in original); compare with United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358, 1360-61 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding two robberies, committed within three minutes and roughly thirty feet of one another, were separate offenses because the perpetrator "could have ceased his criminal activity after the completion of the first robbery"). After all, as the Eleventh Circuit noted in Pope, a perpetrator who robs multiple people in one "stick up" has not committed successive criminal acts. See Pope, 132 F.3d at 691-692.

  9. United States v. Dantzler

    117 F. Supp. 3d 198 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    In addition, the courts of appeals that have explicitly addressed the question have determined that the Government bears the burden of proving the offenses were committed on different occasions by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Kirkland, 687 F.3d at 894–95; United States v. Foster, 662 F.3d 291, 299–300 (4th Cir.2011); United States v. Crump, 229 Fed.Appx. 186, 189 (3d Cir.2007) (non-precedential opinion); United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir.2006); United States v. Phillips, 149 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir.1998). The approved materials in this case make clear that both crimes took place on the same day, and involved the same three perpetrators.

  10. United States v. Taylor

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 6:11-CR-00008-2 (W.D. Va. Nov. 14, 2014)

    "Strict adherence to the dictates of [Rule 32(i)(3)(C)] is essential because the rule helps ensure that future decisions about a defendant's penal treatment are based on a fair and accurate [presentence report]." Lopez, 907 F.2d at 1101; see also United States v. Spears, 443 F.3d 1358, 1362 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Kramer, 943 F.2d 1543, 1553 (11th Cir.1991); UnitedStates v. Forbes, 888 F.2d 752, 755 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. McCants, 434 F.3d 557, 561 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Here, the disputed matters were pertinent to the accurate calculation of Defendant's guideline range, a ruling was mandatory, and I made the ruling.