Case: 19-11484 Date Filed: 01/14/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-11484
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 4:16-cv-00017-RH-MJF; 4:12-cr-00006-RH-MJF-1
FRED SOMERS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 14, 2020)
Before JILL PRYOR, ANDERSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Fred Somers, a counseled federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. On appeal, Somers argues
Case: 19-11484 Date Filed: 01/14/2020 Page: 2 of 6
that his sentence -- which was enhanced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act
(“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) -- is now invalid. After careful review, we affirm.
When reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, we review findings of fact for
clear error and questions of law de novo. McKay v. United States, 657 F.3d 1190,
1195 (11th Cir. 2011). We review de novo whether a conviction qualifies as a
violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause. United States v. Deshazior, 882
F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1255 (2019). In an appeal
brought by an unsuccessful § 2255 movant, the scope of our review is limited to the
issues specified in the certificate of appealability. McKay, 657 F.3d at 1195.
Under the ACCA, a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a
firearm who has three or more prior convictions for a “violent felony” or “serious
drug offense” faces a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
The ACCA defines a violent felony as any crime punishable by a term of
imprisonment exceeding one year that:
(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force against the person of another; or
(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise
involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury
to another.
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). The first prong of this definition is referred to as the
“elements clause,” while the second prong contains the “enumerated crimes” and
“residual clause.” United States v. Owens, 672 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir. 2012). In
2
Case: 19-11484 Date Filed: 01/14/2020 Page: 3 of 6
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the Supreme Court struck down
the residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2557–60. In holding that the
residual clause was void, the Supreme Court clarified that it did not call into question
the application of the elements clause. Id. at 2563. It later held that Johnson
announced a new substantive rule that applied retroactively to cases on collateral
review. Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016).
To qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause, a conviction
must have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force
against the person of another. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). We employ the
categorical approach to determine whether a conviction necessarily requires the use
or threatened use of physical force, looking only at the required elements of a
defendant’s prior offenses, and not to the particular facts underlying those
convictions. United States v. Jones, 906 F.3d 1325, 1328 (11th Cir. 2018), cert.
denied, 139 S. Ct. 1202 (2019). A crime is categorically a violent felony under the
elements clause if even the least of the culpable conduct criminalized by the statute
would fall within the ACCA definition. Id.
In Florida, an aggravated assault is an assault (a) with a deadly weapon
without intent to kill, or (b) with an intent to commit a felony. Fla. Stat. § 784.021.
An assault is defined as an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence
to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some
3
Case: 19-11484 Date Filed: 01/14/2020 Page: 4 of 6
act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is
imminent. Fla. Stat. § 784.011.
In 2013, we held that a movant’s Florida conviction for aggravated assault
qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause. Turner v. Warden
Coleman FCI, 709 F.3d 1328, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds
by Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2251. We reasoned, first, that aggravated assault, by its
definitional terms, necessary included an assault, which is an intentional and
unlawful threat “to do violence” to the person of another. Id. at 1338. We further
concluded that aggravated assault necessarily included as an element the “threatened
use of physical force against the person of another.” Id.
In United States v. Golden, we affirmed the defendant’s sentence because
Turner, as binding precedent, foreclosed the argument that his conviction for
aggravated assault was not a violent felony. 854 F.3d 1256, 1256-57 (11th Cir.
2017); see also Deshazior, 882 F.3d at 1355 (holding that a defendant’s argument
that Florida aggravated assault is not a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA is
foreclosed by Turner). We said in Golden that, even if Turner was flawed, that did
not give a later panel authority to disregard it. Golden, 854 F.3d at 1257.
Under the well-established prior panel precedent rule of this Circuit, the
holding of the first panel to address an issue is the law of this Circuit, thereby binding
all subsequent panels unless and until the first panel’s holding is overruled by this
4
Case: 19-11484 Date Filed: 01/14/2020 Page: 5 of 6
Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. United States v. Kaley, 579 F.3d
1246, 1255 (11th Cir. 2009). An intervening Supreme Court decision can only
overrule the decision of a prior panel of this Court if it is clearly on point. Id. We’ve
squarely rejected any exception to the prior panel precedent rule based upon a
perceived defect in the prior panel’s reasoning or analysis as it relates to the law in
existence at that time. United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 942 (11th Cir. 2016).
Here, Somer argues that the district court erred in denying his § 2255 motion
because it erroneously relied on his Florida aggravated assault conviction as one of
his three ACCA predicate offenses. He says, first, that his conviction for aggravated
assault does not qualify as a “violent felony” under ACCA’s residual clause in light
of Johnson. Further, he argues, even if the offense qualified as an ACCA predicate
under the elements clause, we should reverse the district court because our binding
case law concerning the ACCA’s elements clause is flawed. However, as Somers
recognizes, our binding precedent forecloses his claim that Florida aggravated
assault does not qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause. See
Turner, 709 F.3d at 1337-38; Golden, 854 F.3d at 1256-57. Although Somers argues
that Turner was wrongly decided, we do not have the authority to disregard it. See
Golden, 854 F.3d at 1257; Fritts, 841 F.3d at 942. 1
1
Somers also petitions for an initial hearing en banc. No judge in regular service on the
Court having requested that the Court be polled on initial hearing en banc, the Petition for
5
Case: 19-11484 Date Filed: 01/14/2020 Page: 6 of 6
AFFIRMED.
Hearing En Banc is DENIED. Fed. R. App. P. 35; 11th Cir. R. 35–5. Nevertheless, as always,
Somers remains free to seek rehearing en banc of this panel’s decision.
6