Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 18-11872 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr-80095-BB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE JUSTIN DAWKINS, a.k.a. "J-Bo",
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(May 15, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 2 of 6
Willie Justin Dawkins appeals his 210-month sentence following his
conviction on drug and firearm charges. He argues that the district court erred in
applying sentencing enhancements for his prior Florida robbery conviction because
that offense does not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal
Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), or the career offender provisions of the advisory
sentencing guidelines, U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 & 4B1.2. After reviewing the record and
the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I
In December of 2017, a federal grand jury charged Mr. Dawkins with five
counts of distributing a substance containing heroin and fentanyl, one count of
distributing a substance containing heroin, one count of distributing a substance
containing fentanyl, one count of distributing a substance containing a fentanyl
analogue, and one count of possessing a firearm as a felon. See 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g), & 924(e).
Mr. Dawkins pled guilty to seven of the eight drug counts. He proceeded to
trial on the felon in possession charge and on one of the counts of distributing a
substance containing heroin and fentanyl. In January of 2018, the jury returned
guilty verdicts on both of these charges.
2 Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 3 of 6
The presentence investigation report (PSI) determined that Mr. Dawkins was
an armed career criminal under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), because he had
previously been convicted under Florida law of possession of cocaine with intent to
sell, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and robbery. The PSI also concluded
that, based on these same convictions, Mr. Dawkins was a career offender under the
advisory guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2. The PSI applied both the armed
career criminal and the career offender enhancements and calculated an advisory
guideline range of 235 to 293 months of imprisonment.
Mr. Dawkins filed objections to the PSI, arguing that his Florida robbery
conviction, see Fla. Stat. § 812.13, did not qualify as a predicate felony for either the
ACCA enhancement or the career offender enhancement. The district court
disagreed, determined that Mr. Dawkins was subject to both enhancements, and
sentenced him to 210 months of imprisonment. Mr. Dawkins now appeals.1
II
We review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as a violent felony
under the ACCA. See, e.g., United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334, 1341 (11th Cir.
2014). We also review de novo whether a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence
1 Mr. Dawkins does not dispute that his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon are predicate felonies for both enhancements. 3 Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 4 of 6
under the advisory guidelines. See United States v. Dixon, 874 F.3d 678, 680 (11th
Cir. 2017).
III
The ACCA imposes a 15-year minimum sentence on a defendant who is
convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and has three prior
convictions for a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense.” See 18 U.S.C. §
924(e)(1). Under the ACCA’s elements clause, a “violent felony” includes any
offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force against the person of another.” § 924(e)(2).
Mr. Dawkins argues that Florida robbery does not qualify as a violent felony
under the elements clause. He acknowledges—as he did before the district court—
that this argument is foreclosed by binding Eleventh Circuit precedent. See, e.g.,
United States v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that Florida
robbery is categorically a violent felony under the elements clause of the ACCA);
United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 943-44 (11th Cir. 2016) (same). But he
contends that Dowd and its progeny were wrongly decided. And he notes that, at
the time that he filed his initial brief, a case was pending before the United States
Supreme Court which concerned whether Florida robbery qualifies as a violent
felony under the elements clause.
4 Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 5 of 6
Shortly after Mr. Dawkins filed his brief, the Supreme Court decided that case,
and upheld our determination in Dowd that Florida robbery qualifies as a violent
felony. See Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544, 555 (2019) (“Florida robbery
qualifies as an ACCA-predicate offense under the elements clause.”). Because the
Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling forecloses Mr. Dawkins’ sole argument
concerning the ACCA enhancement, we affirm the district court’s application of that
enhancement.
Mr. Dawkins also challenges the district court’s application of the career
offender enhancement under the advisory guidelines. A defendant is subject to the
career offender enhancement if, among other things, he has at least two prior felony
convictions for a “crime of violence.” See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The guidelines define
a crime of violence as a felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person of another” or “is murder,
voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, a forcible sex offense, [or]
robbery,” among other enumerated offenses. § 4B1.2(a).
Mr. Dawkins argues that Florida robbery does not qualify as a “crime of
violence” under either the elements clause or the enumerated offenses clause of the
career offender provisions. But this argument, too, is foreclosed by precedent. We
have held that Florida robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under both clauses.
See United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 18-11872 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr-80095-BB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE JUSTIN DAWKINS, a.k.a. "J-Bo",
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(May 15, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 2 of 6
Willie Justin Dawkins appeals his 210-month sentence following his
conviction on drug and firearm charges. He argues that the district court erred in
applying sentencing enhancements for his prior Florida robbery conviction because
that offense does not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal
Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), or the career offender provisions of the advisory
sentencing guidelines, U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 & 4B1.2. After reviewing the record and
the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I
In December of 2017, a federal grand jury charged Mr. Dawkins with five
counts of distributing a substance containing heroin and fentanyl, one count of
distributing a substance containing heroin, one count of distributing a substance
containing fentanyl, one count of distributing a substance containing a fentanyl
analogue, and one count of possessing a firearm as a felon. See 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g), & 924(e).
Mr. Dawkins pled guilty to seven of the eight drug counts. He proceeded to
trial on the felon in possession charge and on one of the counts of distributing a
substance containing heroin and fentanyl. In January of 2018, the jury returned
guilty verdicts on both of these charges.
2 Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 3 of 6
The presentence investigation report (PSI) determined that Mr. Dawkins was
an armed career criminal under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), because he had
previously been convicted under Florida law of possession of cocaine with intent to
sell, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and robbery. The PSI also concluded
that, based on these same convictions, Mr. Dawkins was a career offender under the
advisory guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1, 4B1.2. The PSI applied both the armed
career criminal and the career offender enhancements and calculated an advisory
guideline range of 235 to 293 months of imprisonment.
Mr. Dawkins filed objections to the PSI, arguing that his Florida robbery
conviction, see Fla. Stat. § 812.13, did not qualify as a predicate felony for either the
ACCA enhancement or the career offender enhancement. The district court
disagreed, determined that Mr. Dawkins was subject to both enhancements, and
sentenced him to 210 months of imprisonment. Mr. Dawkins now appeals.1
II
We review de novo whether a prior conviction qualifies as a violent felony
under the ACCA. See, e.g., United States v. Howard, 742 F.3d 1334, 1341 (11th Cir.
2014). We also review de novo whether a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence
1 Mr. Dawkins does not dispute that his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon are predicate felonies for both enhancements. 3 Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 4 of 6
under the advisory guidelines. See United States v. Dixon, 874 F.3d 678, 680 (11th
Cir. 2017).
III
The ACCA imposes a 15-year minimum sentence on a defendant who is
convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and has three prior
convictions for a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense.” See 18 U.S.C. §
924(e)(1). Under the ACCA’s elements clause, a “violent felony” includes any
offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force against the person of another.” § 924(e)(2).
Mr. Dawkins argues that Florida robbery does not qualify as a violent felony
under the elements clause. He acknowledges—as he did before the district court—
that this argument is foreclosed by binding Eleventh Circuit precedent. See, e.g.,
United States v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that Florida
robbery is categorically a violent felony under the elements clause of the ACCA);
United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 943-44 (11th Cir. 2016) (same). But he
contends that Dowd and its progeny were wrongly decided. And he notes that, at
the time that he filed his initial brief, a case was pending before the United States
Supreme Court which concerned whether Florida robbery qualifies as a violent
felony under the elements clause.
4 Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 5 of 6
Shortly after Mr. Dawkins filed his brief, the Supreme Court decided that case,
and upheld our determination in Dowd that Florida robbery qualifies as a violent
felony. See Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544, 555 (2019) (“Florida robbery
qualifies as an ACCA-predicate offense under the elements clause.”). Because the
Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling forecloses Mr. Dawkins’ sole argument
concerning the ACCA enhancement, we affirm the district court’s application of that
enhancement.
Mr. Dawkins also challenges the district court’s application of the career
offender enhancement under the advisory guidelines. A defendant is subject to the
career offender enhancement if, among other things, he has at least two prior felony
convictions for a “crime of violence.” See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The guidelines define
a crime of violence as a felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person of another” or “is murder,
voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, a forcible sex offense, [or]
robbery,” among other enumerated offenses. § 4B1.2(a).
Mr. Dawkins argues that Florida robbery does not qualify as a “crime of
violence” under either the elements clause or the enumerated offenses clause of the
career offender provisions. But this argument, too, is foreclosed by precedent. We
have held that Florida robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under both clauses.
See United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238, 1242-45 (11th Cir. 2011). 5 Case: 18-11872 Date Filed: 05/15/2019 Page: 6 of 6
We recognize that Mr. Dawkins contends that Lockley was wrongly decided.
Specifically, he asserts that, contrary to Lockley’s analysis, the Florida robbery
statute criminalizes a broader range of conduct than generic robbery. 2 But under the
prior precedent rule, we are bound by Lockley unless and until it is overruled by the
Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc. See United States v. Brown, 342
F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003). We therefore affirm the district court’s
application of the career offender enhancement.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Mr. Dawkins’ sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2 According to Mr. Dawkins, the generic form of robbery requires that the defendant use violence or intimidation as a part of—or at least contemporaneously with—the taking of property. In contrast, he contends, the Florida statute criminalizes instances in which the defendant uses violence or intimidation before or after taking property. See Fla. Stat. § 812.13(3)(b) (defining a use of force, violence or intimidation “in the course of the taking” as one that “occurs either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taking of the property if it and the act of taking constitute a continuous serious of acts or events”). Whatever the merits of Mr. Dawkins’ contention, it is foreclosed by our holding in Lockley. 6