United States v. Jamaal Hameen

── United States v. Jamaal Hameen ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: CON USCA11 Case: 19-14279 Document: 179-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2026 Page: 1 of 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-14279 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMAAL A. HAMEEN, a.k.a. Charles Flowers, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00115-MMH-JBT-1 ____________________ ____________________ No. 22-12968 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus USCA11 Case: 19-14279 Document: 179-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2026 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 19-14279 JAMAAL A. HAMEEN, a.k.a. Charles Flowers, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00115-MMH-JBT-1 ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jamaal Hameen was sentenced to 180-months’ imprison- ment and five years of supervised release for one count of “posses- sion of a firearm by a convicted felon,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). On appeal, he presents a number of chal- lenges to his conviction and sentence, only one of which we ad- dress here. The first time we considered Jamaal Hameen’s appeal, we rejected all seven of the claims he raised. United States v. Hameen, Nos. 19-14279 & 22-12968, 2023 WL 6053541 (11th Cir. Sep. 18, 2023). Hameen petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certio- rari, and the Court granted his petition, vacated our opinion, and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decision in Erlinger v. United States, Hameen v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2712 (Mem.) (2024), in which it had held that a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt—rather than a judge by a preponderance of the evidence— that a criminal defendant’s Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) USCA11 Case: 19-14279 Document: 179-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2026 Page: 3 of 8 19-14279 Opinion of the Court 3 predicate offenses were “committed on occasions different from one another,” 602 U.S. 821, 834 (2024) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)). Because Hameen’s seventh claim is the only one that implicates Erlinger, we address only that claim here and reinstate the remainder of our original opinion. With respect to Hameen’s Erlinger-related claim, we conclude that although it was error for the judge—rather than the jury—to determine that his ACCA pred- icate offenses occurred on different occasions, the error was harm- less. Accordingly, we affirm Hameen’s sentence. I