United States v. Edwin Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Edwin Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Eddy Salinas (ca11, 2026-02-04)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Eddy Salinas
11th Cir. · 2026 · confidence medium
The government counters that Salinas, as a “career of- fender,” is categorically ineligible to receive the reduction.1 The government is correct. “[M]inor role adjustments are not available to [career offenders] sentenced under § 4B1.1,” which “by its express terms, only authorizes an adjustment based on ac- ceptance of responsibility.” United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Raynaldo Ray Quiroga
11th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kenneth Eugene Thomas, Jr. (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Lazaro Candelaria
11th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Reginald Delaney
11th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Anthony Sean Dawson
11th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
Defendants sentenced as career offenders are ineligible for mitigating role reductions. 2 United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kevin Applefield
11th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Aaron Lee Bostic
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003). 1 *464 The rule of lenity requires a “grievous ambiguity” or “uncertainty in the statute.” United States v. Maupin, 520 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir.2008).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Theodore D. Lockley
11th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
That is, we 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 2003) and Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 , 12 n.14, 119 S. Ct. 966 , 972 n.14, 143 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jonathan Cashaw
5th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
See United States v. Morales-Diaz, 925 F.2d 535, 540 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Perez, 328 F.3d 96, 97-98 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 155 F.3d 682, 684-85 (3d Cir.1998); United States v. Ward, 144 F.3d 1024, 1036 (7th Cir.1998); United States v. Beltran, 122 F.3d 1156, 1160 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. McCoy, 23 F.3d 216, 218 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam); United States v. Jeppeson, 333 F.3d 1180, 1184 (10th Cir.2003); United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam). 4 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. James Lewis Jackson
11th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Geneva Ellwood (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. John Barrios
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
And, since United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003), instructs that a career offender may not receive a role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, the court committed no error in refusing to adjust appellant’s offense level downward for his role in the criminal activity.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Stickle
S.D. Fla. · 2004 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Luis Enrique Polar
11th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Keondrae Neely
11th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2003).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Ramiro Burgos, Jr.
11th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Lockley
11th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d 1307 , 1315 (11th Cir.2005) (refusing to apply the rule of lenity upon finding § 2L1.2 unambiguous after application of the "normal rules of [statutory] construction”) (citing United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003) and Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 , 12 n. 14, 119 S.Ct. 966 , 972 n. 14, 143 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) ("We have repeatedly stated that the rule of lenity applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be derived, we can make no more than a guess as to what Congress intended.” (internal quotation …
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Wright (2×)
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Juan Muza
11th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (holding that the rule of lenity applies to the Sentencing Guidelines where there is ambiguity).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Elvis Fredy Camacho-Ibarquen
11th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003); see also Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 , 12 n. 14, 119 S.Ct. 966 , 972 n. 14, 143 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) ("We have repeatedly stated that the rule of lenity applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be derived, we can make no more than a guess as to what Congress intended." (internal quotation and marks omitted)).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen
11th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003); see also Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 , 12 n. 14, 119 S.Ct. 966 , 972 n. 14, 143 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) (“We have repeatedly stated that the rule of lenity applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be derived, we can make no more than a guess as to what Congress intended.” (internal quotation and marks omitted)).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Elvis Fredy Camacho-Ibarquen
11th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003); see also Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 , 12 n. 14, 119 S.Ct. 966 , 972 n. 14, 143 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) (“We have repeatedly stated that the rule of lenity applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be derived, we can make no more than a guess as to what Congress intended.” (internal quotation and marks omitted)).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Ronquillo
5th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003) (citing to First, Third, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Scott Inclema
11th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The Supreme Court has stated that when there are two rational readings of a criminal statute, one harsher than the other, the rule of lenity dictates that we are to choose the harsher one only when Congress has spoken “in language that is clear and definite.” United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 , 92 S.Ct. 515 , 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971); see also United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003) (noting that the “rule of lenity” applies if a statute — in this instance, a sentencing guideline' — -is ambiguous).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Edwin JETER, Defendant-Appellant
02-15326.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 6, 2003.
329 F.3d 1229
Lila V. Cleveland (Court-Appointed), Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant., Richard H. Loftin, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tjoflat, Barkett, Hull.
Cited by 26 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a federal prisoner currently serving a 168-month sentence imposed following a plea of guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, challenges his sentence on the ground that the district court, in applying the Sentencing Guidelines, erred in denying him a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Appellant is a career offender. Under the Guidelines, a defendant is a career offender if the following three elements are present (as they are here):

(1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction,
(2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense, and
(3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. While a career offender’s criminal history category is always Category VI, § 4B1.1 indicates that with respect to the defendant’s offense level, as distinguished from his criminal history category, “[i]f an adjustment from § 3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility) applies, [a court must] decrease the offense level by the number of levels corresponding to that adjustment.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

In contending that the court should have granted him a minor role adjustment under § 4B1.1, appellant relies on the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity applies if a statute — in this instance, a sentencing guideline — is ambiguous. United States v. Johnson, 155 F.3d 682, 685 (3rd Cir.1998). Because § 4B1.1, by its express terms, only authorizes an adjustment based on acceptance of responsibility, and does not mention the minor role adjustment, and since “the inclusion of one implies the exclusion of others,” United States v. Koonce, 991 F.2d 693, 698 (11th Cir.1993), the guideline is not ambiguous and the rule of lenity does not apply. Johnson, 155 F.3d at 685.

Several of our sister circuits appear to hold that the minor role adjustment is not available to a defendant sentenced under the career offender provision. See id. at 684 & n. 4 (citing to the First, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, all of which have held that mitigating role adjustments do not apply in the career offender scenario). Today we make it clear that minor role adjustments are not available to defendants sentenced under § 4B1.1.

Appellant’s sentence is, accordingly,

AFFIRMED.