PONDER v. UNITED STATES (2019)

Cedrick Ponder appeals the district court’s denial of his authorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Mr. Ponder argues that the sentence—which was enhanced to a mandatory minimum 15 years pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), see 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(1)—is unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). After the district court denied his motion, but before briefing in this appeal commenced, we issued Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2017), which established a § 2255 movant’s burden when seeking relief under Johnson.

Assuming that Mr. Ponder could satisfy the requirements of Beeman, we affirm the denial of § 2255 relief. We have held that both Florida aggravated assault and Florida robbery—Mr. Ponder’s two unchallenged convictions—satisfy the ACCA’s elements clause. See Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium), 709 F.3d 1328, 1337–39 (11th Cir. 2013): United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir. 2011). See also Stokeling v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 544, 555, 202 L.Ed.2d 512 (2019) (holding that Florida robbery satisfies the ACCA’s elements clause). As Mr. Ponder concedes, these cases constitute binding precedent for this panel. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM: