Anthony Grant Jackson v. United States

707 F. App'x 954
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 2018
Docket14-15100 Non-Argument Calendar
StatusUnpublished

This text of 707 F. App'x 954 (Anthony Grant Jackson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anthony Grant Jackson v. United States, 707 F. App'x 954 (11th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Grant Jackson appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. On appeal, Jackson argues that he does not have three qualifying Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), predicate offenses. 1

In a section 2255 proceeding, we review legal issues, de novo and factual findings for clear error. United States v. Walker, 198 F.3d 811, 813 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). A district court’s determination that a conviction qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA is reviewed de novo. United States v. Gandy, 710 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

We have recently reaffirmed that Florida armed robbery qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause. See United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 942 (11th Cir. 2016). We have also, held that Florida resisting arrest with violence is a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause. See United States v. Hill, 799 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). A “prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008).

Here, the district court did not err by denying Jackson’s § 2255 motion. Jackson has a prior conviction for Florida armed robbery and a prior conviction for Florida resisting arrest with violence, both of which qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA’s elements clause based on our binding precedent. 2 To the extent that Jackson asserts that those decisions were wrongly decided, we remain bound by those holdings until they are overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc. Thus, combined with his “serious drug offense” predicate offense, Jackson has three ACCA qualifying predicate offenses.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The United States has waived its defense, of procedural default, so we do not discuss it here,

2

. Jackson also has a conviction for delivery of cocaine, and he does not challenge that it qualifies as a serious drug offense,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Archer
531 F.3d 1347 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Dedrick D. Gandy
710 F.3d 1234 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Tywan Hill
799 F.3d 1318 (Eleventh Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Derwin Fritts
841 F.3d 937 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
707 F. App'x 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-grant-jackson-v-united-states-ca11-2018.