Case: 16-11942 Date Filed: 12/21/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11942
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cr-00096-LGW-GRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ZICRON LORENZEN WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 21, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Zicron Wright is a federal prisoner who was tried and convicted for possessing
ammunition as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appeals his
sentence, arguing that his sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal
Case: 16-11942 Date Filed: 12/21/2018 Page: 2 of 4
Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), is invalid because his Georgia convictions for
robbery by sudden snatching, Ga. Stat. § 16-8-40(a)(3), and aggravated assault, Ga.
Stat. § 16-5-21, are not violent felonies under the Act. Because Mr. Wright also
committed two burglaries that count as violent felonies under ACCA, we affirm the
district court.
Whether a particular conviction is a violent felony under the ACCA is a
question of law we generally review de novo. See United States v. Canty,
570 F.3d
1251, 1254 (11th Cir. 2009). But where, as here, a defendant does not challenge his
predicate convictions in the district court, we review for plain error. See United
States v. Jones,
743 F.3d 826, 828 (11th Cir. 2014). When a defendant has chosen
not to challenge his presentence investigation report (“PSI”) at sentencing, we deem
the facts of the PSI admitted for sentencing purposes. See United States v. Wade,
458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006).
A felon in possession of ammunition who has at least three prior convictions
“for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions
different from one another,” is subject to a fifteen-year minimum enhanced statutory
penalty under the ACCA. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Mr. Wright has not challenged
that two of his prior convictions, for selling cocaine and possessing cocaine with the
intent to distribute, are serious drug offenses under the ACCA. Therefore, the only
2
Case: 16-11942 Date Filed: 12/21/2018 Page: 3 of 4
question is whether the record reflects that Mr. Wright has committed a third violent
felony or serious drug offense that triggers the ACCA’s minimum 15-year penalty.
After Mr. Wright’s conviction, the Probation Office prepared a PSI. The PSI
indicated that Mr. Wright committed at least two prior serious drug offenses and at
least two prior crimes of violence (robbery by sudden snatching and aggravated
assault). The PSI also listed two convictions for burglary in Mr. Wright’s criminal
history, one in 1983 for breaking into a confectionary with the intent to commit theft
and a second in 1984 for breaking into an oil service station with the intent to commit
theft. Mr. Wright did not challenge these statements in the report.
Even assuming that Mr. Wright’s convictions for robbery by sudden snatching
and aggravated assault are not violent felonies, his other two burglary convictions
satisfy the three-violent-felony threshold under the ACCA. We have previously held
that Georgia burglary—breaking into a dwelling house or building with the intent to
commit a crime therein—is a violent crime under the ACCA. See United States v.
Gundy,
842 F.3d 1156, 1169 (11th Cir. 2016). Those elements match the facts of
Mr. Wright’s previous offenses, i.e., breaking into two buildings (a confectionary
and an oil service station) with the intent to commit a crime (theft). Mr. Wright has
not challenged the statements in the PSI or responded to the government’s arguments
on appeal that these two convictions each qualify as violent felonies under the
ACCA, and he has thus waived any argument that the facts of those two crimes are
3
Case: 16-11942 Date Filed: 12/21/2018 Page: 4 of 4
different from what is set out in the PSI. Consequently, Mr. Wright’s sentence is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
4
