Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Anthony Grant JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
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.
FOOTNOTES
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.
PER CURIAM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-15100
Decided: January 04, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)