United States v. Lewis – The Eleventh Circuit’s Post-Erlinger Template for Plain-Error Review of ACCA “Different Occasions” Findings

Introduction

In United States v. Willie Lee Lewis, the Eleventh Circuit confronted, for the first time after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022), and Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), a challenge to an Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) enhancement. The appellant, Willie Lee Lewis, received a 120-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing the district court found that three prior Florida cocaine offenses qualified as “serious drug offenses” and had been committed on “occasions different from one another,” thereby triggering ACCA’s mandatory fifteen-year minimum. While the Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Wooden, the panel subsequently had to integrate Erlinger’s brand-new jury-fact-finding requirement. Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that:

Lewis’s Florida cocaine convictions categorically meet ACCA’s definition of “serious drug offense”; and
Although the district court, not a jury, made the “different occasions” finding, any Erlinger error was not plain because Lewis failed to satisfy the heavy third prong of plain-error review—showing a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

The judgment thus supplies the first clear Eleventh-Circuit blueprint for handling unpreserved Erlinger claims on appeal and articulates how prior cocaine convictions under Florida law continue to qualify as ACCA predicates after Brown v. United States, 602 U.S. 101 (2024).

Summary of the Judgment

The panel (Judges Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Lagoa) rejected four separate arguments advanced by Lewis:

Staleness. Convictions from 1991 and 1995 are not too old; ACCA has no temporal limit.
Overbreadth. Florida’s cocaine statutes match the federal schedules in force when Lewis committed the state crimes, as confirmed by Jackson II and affirmed in Brown.
Lack of Intent to Distribute. Florida trafficking convictions under § 893.135 are serious drug offenses per Conage III.
“Different Occasions.” Even after Erlinger, Lewis could not show plain error because the three predicate offenses were separated by years; a jury would inevitably find distinct occasions.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the ACCA enhancement and Lewis’s 120-month sentence.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Wooden v. United States (2022) – Re-defined “occasions” to require a holistic, multi-factor test rather than mere temporal distinctness.
Erlinger v. United States (2024) – Held that a jury must determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions.
United States v. Jackson (Jackson I 2022, Jackson II 2022) and Brown v. United States (2024) – Established that ACCA incorporates the federal drug schedules in force at the time of the state offense. Lewis’s convictions thus still qualify though Florida once covered the (now-descheduled) compound ioflupane.
United States v. Conage trilogy (2020–2022) – Confirmed that Florida cocaine-trafficking constitutes “serious drug offenses” because it involves possession of a trafficking quantity.
United States v. Green (11th Cir. 1990) – Early Eleventh-Circuit authority holding ACCA lacks a look-back period.
United States v. Sneed, Dudley, Penn, and Edwards – Illuminate the Circuit’s treatment of “different occasions” and plain-error burdens both before and after Erlinger.

2. Legal Reasoning

a) Serious Drug Offense Qualification

The court read § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) literally: an offense “involving” manufacturing, distribution, or possession with intent, with a maximum punishment of ten years or more, suffices. Nothing in the statutory text imposes (i) a 15-year recency cap or (ii) a requirement that the defendant previously served 12 months. Congress added those temporal/length restrictions only in the First Step Act with respect to § 924(c) “serious drug felony,” not ACCA. The panel therefore followed Green.

b) Categorical Approach vs. Florida Cocaine Statutes

Using the categorical approach, the statutory elements, not factual conduct, control. Under Jackson II / Brown, the comparison date is the date of the state conviction. In 1991, 1995, and 2013, cocaine appeared on both state and federal schedules, so the match was exact. Lewis’s attempt to revisit Jackson II was foreclosed by Supreme Court affirmance in Brown.

c) Trafficking Conviction and Intent to Distribute

Conage III, accepting the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation, treats buying and thereby “constructively possessing” trafficking quantities as “possessing with intent to distribute.” The Eleventh Circuit observed that nothing in Conage had been overruled.

d) Post-Erlinger Plain-Error Framework

Error: A judge (not jury) found different occasions.
Plainness: Error was “plain” only after Erlinger (decided while appeal pending). The court assumed arguendo the second prong was met.
Substantial Rights: Lewis had to show a reasonable probability a jury would find just one occasion.
- His predicates span 1991, 1995, and 2013—over 22 years.
- No overlapping location, victims, or continuous course of conduct.
Consequently, prejudice was impossible.
Integrity of Proceedings: With prong three failed, the panel never reached prong four.

3. Impact of the Judgment

Appellate Strategy Post-Erlinger. Defendants who did not object below must now marshal concrete evidence that their predicate crimes might be viewed by a jury as a single occasion. Merely citing Erlinger is insufficient.
Continuity for Florida Drug Offenses. The panel reinforces that all cocaine crimes under §§ 893.13 and 893.135 remain ACCA predicates unless Congress amends the statute.
District Court Practice. Sentencing judges within the Eleventh Circuit should impanel juries (or obtain admissions) on the “different occasions” question when the issue is fairly in dispute. However, failure to do so will rarely warrant reversal on plain-error review when the offenses are widely separated in time.
Precedential Value. While unpublished, Eleventh-Circuit practitioners treat non-argument-calendar opinions as persuasive. This decision delivers the Circuit’s first application of Erlinger’s jury requirement in the plain-error context, supplying a de facto template until a published opinion arrives.

Complex Concepts Simplified

ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act) – A federal statute that boosts the sentence of felons in possession of a firearm from a 10-year maximum to a 15-year minimum if they have at least three prior “violent felonies” or “serious drug offenses.”
Serious Drug Offense – For state crimes, any offense involving manufacture, distribution, or possession with intent, punishable by ≥10 years. No look-back period, no minimum time-served requirement.
Categorical Approach – Courts compare legal elements of statutes, not the defendant’s underlying facts, to see if a state offense “matches” the federal definition.
Different Occasions Clause – ACCA predicates must be “committed on occasions different from one another.” After Wooden, courts look at time, location, and character of the crimes.
Plain-Error Review – When an appellant failed to object below, he must show (1) error, (2) obviousness, (3) prejudice (a reasonable probability of a different outcome), and (4) an affront to judicial integrity. The burden is on the defendant.
Erlinger Error – Occurs when a judge (not a jury) decides that prior offenses were on different occasions, without the defendant admitting it.

Conclusion

United States v. Lewis harmonizes the Eleventh Circuit’s ACCA jurisprudence with the Supreme Court’s evolving doctrine. By:

Reaffirming Florida cocaine offenses as ACCA predicates post-Brown;
Endorsing Conage on trafficking convictions; and
Crafting a stringent plain-error standard for unpreserved Erlinger claims,

the court provides a practical roadmap for both prosecutors and defense counsel. Going forward, defendants must raise “different occasions” objections at sentencing or risk near-certain affirmance on appeal. District courts, meanwhile, are on notice to empanel juries only when genuinely necessary, conserving judicial resources. Though unpublished, Lewis is poised to influence ACCA litigation until Congress or the Supreme Court again redraws the landscape.