Case: 16-15939 Date Filed: 12/18/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15939
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 8:16-cv-01712-JDW-TGW,
8:07-cr-00424-JDW-TGW-1
ASHLY ADARIUS DAVENPORT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 18, 2019)
Case: 16-15939 Date Filed: 12/18/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ashly Davenport pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951 and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The District Court sentenced him to 180
months of imprisonment.
Davenport moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the
District Court denied his motion. Davenport appealed, and we granted a certificate
of appealability (“COA”) on whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v.
United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), affected his conviction for violating §
924(c). But Johnson does not affect Davenport’s conviction because that decision
does not pertain to § 924(c). And even if we treat his claim as challenging his
conviction pursuant to United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), which struck
down the residual clause of § 924(c), binding precedent in this Circuit holds that
Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c),
and therefore his appeal lacks merit. See United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335,
345–51 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding, on direct appeal, that Hobbs Act robbery and
attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualify as crimes of violence under the elements
clause of § 924(c)), abrogated on other grounds by Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319; United
States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] prior panel’s holding
2
Case: 16-15939 Date Filed: 12/18/2019 Page: 3 of 3
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.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s denial of Davenport’s § 2255
motion.
AFFIRMED.
3