United States v. Kashus Davis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: October 30, 2020
• Docket: 20-10896
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 20-10896 Date Filed: 10/30/2020 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 20-10896 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:19-cr-80161-RKA-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

KASHUS DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________

(October 30, 2020)

Before NEWSOM, ANDERSON, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kashus Davis pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. See

18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He appeals his sentence, contending that the district court

erroneously ruled that he qualified for a sentence enhancement under the Armed USCA11 Case: 20-10896 Date Filed: 10/30/2020 Page: 2 of 2

Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Davis argues that his prior

convictions under Florida Statutes § 893.13(1) are not predicate “serious drug

offense[s]” for purposes of the ACCA because the Florida statute “does not require

an element of mens rea regarding the illicit nature of the controlled substance.”

Prior panel precedent forecloses Davis’ argument. We held in Smith that

Florida Statutes § 893.13(1) is a “serious drug offense” for purposes of the ACCA.

United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2014). We also held that a

“serious drug offense” need not include an element of mens rea regarding the illicit

nature of the controlled substance. Id. at 1267–68.

We remain bound by Smith unless and until it is overruled by either the

Supreme Court or us en banc. See Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8

(11th Cir. 2001). Because that has not happened, we affirm Davis’ sentence.

AFFIRMED.