## Facts

- Federal and state officers executed arrest and search warrants at Titus Bates’s residence in the early morning in connection with drug-related offenses.
- Officers approached a side door, announced they were police, ordered the door opened, and began ramming the door when there was no response.
- Bates fired two shots through the door, striking a federal officer in the leg.
- Bates called 911 stating police were at his door, saying he thought someone was trying to break in, and expressing concern he may have shot someone.
- After Bates was taken into custody, he told an ATF agent he did not know it was police and believed he was being robbed.
- Bates was charged with, among other offenses: possession with intent to distribute marijuana, assaulting a federal officer causing bodily injury or using a deadly weapon (18 U.S.C. § 111(b)), discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
- At trial, Bates pursued a self-defense/mistake theory that he did not know the intruders were police and sought admission of his out-of-court statement to the ATF agent and mental-health evidence; the district court excluded some of that evidence.
- Bates was convicted on the contested counts and received a 360-month sentence, including enhancements based on prior Georgia marijuana convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) categorically qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)’s elements clause.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding (a) Bates’s out-of-court statement to the ATF agent and (b) proffered psychiatric testimony offered to support his claim he believed he was being robbed.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the § 111(b) and § 924(c) convictions.
4. Whether prior Georgia convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana qualify as ACCA “serious drug offenses” and Guidelines “controlled substance offenses.”
5. Whether denial of a two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was clear error when Bates pled guilty to some counts but went to trial on others.
6. Whether the 360-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
7. Whether Rehaif error required vacating the § 922(g) conviction under plain-error review.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Bates’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held § 111(b) is categorically a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)’s elements clause.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding Bates’s statement to the ATF agent and excluding the proffered psychiatric testimony.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to sustain the § 111(b) and § 924(c) convictions.
- The court upheld use of Bates’s prior Georgia marijuana convictions as ACCA and Guidelines predicates.
- The court found no clear error in denying acceptance of responsibility.
- The court held the 360-month sentence was substantively reasonable.
- Applying plain-error review, the court held Rehaif did not require vacatur of the § 922(g) conviction on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Under the categorical approach, an offense is a § 924(c) “crime of violence” under the elements clause only if its elements require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force.
- Assault under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), which requires use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or infliction of bodily injury, qualifies as a § 924(c) crime of violence under the elements clause.
- A defendant’s own out-of-court statement offered for its truth is hearsay unless it falls within a recognized exception; trial courts have discretion in applying the excited-utterance exception.
- Psychiatric evidence is inadmissible when offered to show lack of general capacity to form mens rea, but may be admissible if specifically linked to negating the actual mens rea required at the time of the offense.
- Evidence is sufficient if, viewing it in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- State drug convictions can qualify as ACCA “serious drug offenses” and Guidelines “controlled substance offenses” when they match the required conduct (e.g., possession with intent to distribute) and meet applicable penalty criteria.
- Acceptance-of-responsibility reductions may be denied when a defendant contests significant aspects of criminal conduct at trial; appellate review is deferential.
- Under plain-error review after Rehaif, a § 922(g) conviction will not be reversed absent a showing that the knowledge-of-status error affected substantial rights, particularly where the record shows prior felony convictions and significant incarceration.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Bates’s convictions and 360-month sentence, holding that § 111(b) is a categorical § 924(c) crime of violence, the district court’s evidentiary exclusions did not warrant reversal, the evidence supported the assault and firearm convictions, Bates’s prior Georgia marijuana convictions properly served as sentencing predicates, and any Rehaif error did not justify vacating the felon-in-possession conviction under plain-error review.


United States v. Bates, 960 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020)