UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. EMORY AUSTIN CARTER

Holding: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's application of the Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement because Georgia law does not criminalize cocaine isomers that are not controlled substances under federal law.
Standard: Categorical approach
Vote: Unanimous affirmation by a panel of three judges.
Practical effect: The ruling confirms that defendants cannot use theoretical chemical differences in drug definitions to avoid ACCA enhancements when state law incorporates federal scheduling by reference.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act for a defendant with prior Georgia cocaine distribution convictions. The court held that Georgia law does not criminalize cocaine isomers outside the federal schedule, so the state statute is not broader than federal law.

Background

Emory Austin Carter pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of federal law. He had four prior convictions in Georgia for cocaine distribution crimes. The district court classified these as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act, triggering a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence. Carter argued that Georgia’s definition of cocaine was broader than the federal definition because it included all stereoisomers while federal law specified only optical and geometric isomers.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the categorical approach to determine if the prior convictions qualified as serious drug offenses. It found that Georgia law defines a controlled substance as one listed in both state and federal schedules. Therefore, any cocaine isomer not listed federally is not a controlled substance under Georgia law. Carter failed to show a realistic probability that Georgia would prosecute conduct outside the federal definition. The court also rejected an argument regarding ioflupane, noting that the relevant federal schedules are those in effect when the prior crimes were committed.

What it means going forward

The ruling confirms that defendants cannot use theoretical chemical differences in drug definitions to avoid ACCA enhancements when state law incorporates federal scheduling by reference.