Case: 17-15308 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15308
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 4:16-cv-00388-RH-CAS; 4:10-cr-00055-RH-CAS-2
LIONELL TWITTY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 23, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-15308 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 2 of 4
Lionell Twitty, a former federal prisoner currently on supervised release
who pled guilty to possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, cocaine, and
cocaine base, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, and
possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion to vacate. In his motion, he relied on the Supreme Court’s decision
in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and argued that he was
illegally sentenced as an armed career criminal, because his prior convictions for
Florida robbery and Florida aggravated battery were not violent felonies. The
court determined that Florida robbery was a violent felony under the elements
clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and,
relying in part on our decision in Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th
Cir. 2017), the court further concluded that Twitty was not entitled to relief under
Johnson as to his argument regarding Florida battery, because the record did not
show that his sentence was enhanced based solely on the ACCA’s residual clause.
On appeal, Twitty argues that his Florida robbery and Florida battery
convictions do not constitute violent felonies. Twitty concedes that our binding
decisions, including our decision in Beeman, foreclose his arguments on appeal,
but he contends that those binding cases were wrongly decided.
2
Case: 17-15308 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 3 of 4
In a § 2255 proceeding, we review a district court’s legal conclusions de
novo and its factual findings for clear error. Devine v. United States, 520 F.3d
1286, 1287 (11th Cir. 2008).
The ACCA prescribes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence if a
defendant is convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm following three
prior convictions for either a violent felony or a serious drug crime, or both. 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The ACCA defines a violent felony, under its elements clause,
as any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year that has as
an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the
person of another. Id. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).
Under the law of this Circuit when Twitty was sentenced in 2011, a Florida
aggravated battery conviction could constitute a violent felony under the ACCA’s
elements clause using the modified categorical approach. See Curtis Johnson v.
United States, 559 U.S. 133, 135-40, 144-45 (2010).
In Beeman, we held that a defendant bringing a Johnson claim in a § 2255
motion has the burden to “show that—more likely than not—it was use of the
residual clause that led to the sentencing court’s enhancement of his sentence.”
Beeman, 871 F.3d at 1221-22. And, “[i]f it is just as likely that the sentencing
court relied on the elements or enumerated offenses clause, solely or as an
3
Case: 17-15308 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 4 of 4
alternative basis for the enhancement, then the movant has failed to show that his
enhancement was due to use of the residual clause.” Id. at 1222.
Under our binding precedent, Florida robbery categorically qualifies as a
violent felony under the ACCA. See United States v. Joyner, 882 F.3d 1369,
1378-79 (11th Cir. 2018). Under the prior precedent rule, we are bound by our
prior decisions unless and until they are overruled by the Supreme Court or this
Court en banc. United States v. Brown, 342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003).
The District Court’s decision is due to be affirmed, because, as Twitty
acknowledges, our precedents foreclose his arguments on appeal. First, Twitty
concedes that we are “obligated to affirm the district court’s decision” as to his
Florida battery claim based on the holding in Beeman. Moreover, as Twitty also
concedes, his argument that his Florida robbery conviction does not qualify as a
violent felony under the ACCA is foreclosed by our precedent. Although Twitty
argues that Beeman and our Florida robbery decisions were wrongly decided, they
remain binding precedent in this Circuit unless and until they are overruled.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4
Lionell Twitty v. United States
Combined Opinion