Case: 17-13927 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13927
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 0:16-cv-61325-RNS,
0:12-cr-60294-RNS-1
GREGORY RICHARDSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 8, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ROSENBAUM and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Richardson, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion to
vacate his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Richardson sought to vacate his conviction
Case: 17-13927 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 2 of 3
for brandishing a firearm during a bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), on
the grounds that the residual clause in the definition of “crime of violence” in
section 924(c), see id. § 924(c)(3)(B), is void for vagueness after Johnson v. United
States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and that bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), does
not satisfy the elements clause of section 924(c), id. § 924(c)(3)(A). The district
court ruled that bank robbery qualified as a predicate offense under the elements
clause regardless of any effect that Johnson had on section 924(c). We affirm.
Richardson’s challenge to his sentence is foreclosed by our precedents. We
held in In re Sams, 830 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2016), “that a bank robbery
conviction under § 2113(a) by force and violence or by intimidation qualifies as a
crime of violence under the § 924(c)(3)(A) use-of-force clause.” Richardson argues
that Sams adjudicated an application for leave to file a successive motion to vacate
and is not precedential in his collateral proceeding. But we held in United States v.
St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335 (11th Cir. 2018), “that law established in published three-
judge orders issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) in the context of applications
for leave to file second or successive § 2255 motions is binding precedent on all
subsequent panels of this Court, including those reviewing direct appeals and
collateral attacks, unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of
abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” Id. at 346
(alteration adopted and internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2
Case: 17-13927 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 Page: 3 of 3
Richardson’s predicate offense of bank robbery is categorically a crime of violence
under the elements clause of section 924(c).
We AFFIRM Richardson’s conviction and sentence.
3