United States v. Troy Bennett

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 10, 2019
• Docket: 18-10897
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-10897 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ______________________

No. 18-10897 Non-Argument Calendar ______________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cr-00256-CEM-TBS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TROY BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant.

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ______________________

(May 10, 2019)

Before, TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Case: 18-10897 Date Filed: 05/10/2019 Page: 2 of 2

Troy Bennett appeals his 300-month sentence, which the district court

imposed pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We affirm

because both of Mr. Bennett’s arguments are foreclosed by Eleventh Circuit

precedent. See United States v. Hill, 799 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding

that a conviction for resisting an officer with violence pursuant to Fla. Stat. §843.01

is a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause); United States v. Smith, 775

F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that a conviction for possession of

cocaine with the intent to distribute pursuant to Fla. Stat. §893.13 is a serious drug

offense under the ACCA). We recognize Mr. Bennett’s arguments that cases like

Hill and Smith were incorrectly decided, but we are nevertheless bound to follow

them. See, e.g., Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.