FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-13865 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cr-00130-CEH-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANDRE COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (December 3, 2015) Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-13865
Date Filed: 12/03/2015
Page: 2 of 3
Andre Collins appeals his sentence of 151 months of imprisonment
following his plea of guilty to distributing crack cocaine. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii). Collins challenged, for the first time on appeal, his classification as a career offender, see United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual 4B1.1 (Nov. 2013), on the ground that his prior conviction for resisting an officer with violence, Fla. Stat. 843.01, did not qualify as a crime of violence under the residual clause. At our direction, the parties have filed supplemental letter briefs addressing what, if any, effect Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), has on this appeal. Because Collins now concedes that there is no reversible error, we affirm. Collins acknowledges that the district court did not err, much less plainly err, by sentencing him as a career offender. In his supplemental brief, Collins concedes that his challenge to the use of his prior conviction as a predicate offense is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Hill, 799 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015), where we held that a prior conviction for resisting an officer with violence categorically qualifies as a violent felony under the elements clause of the career offender guideline. Id. at 132223. In the alternative, Collins also concedes that any argument that the residual clause of the career offender guideline is void for vagueness is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2015). As we explained in Matchett, [b]ecause there is no 2
Case: 14-13865
Date Filed: 12/03/2015
Page: 3 of 3
constitutional right to sentencing guidelinesor, more generally, to a less
discretionary application of sentences than that permitted prior to the Guidelines the limitations the Guidelines place on a judges discretion cannot violate a defendants right to due process by reason of being vague. Id. at 119495 (quoting United States v. Wivell, 893 F.2d 156, 160 (8th Cir. 1990)). Collins disagrees with our precedents, but [u]nder the prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court, United States v. Martinez, 606 F.3d 1303, 1305 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. VegaCastillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008)). We AFFIRM Collinss sentence.
Rick Dean Petrick v. David Walters, Susan Brimer Loving, James D. Bednar, Douglas B. Allen, Gerald Adams, Neal Leader, Sandra D. Howard, A. Diane Blalock, G. Lynn Burch, Patrick Crawley, Alecia George, Steven S. Kerr, Jennifer B. Miller, Diane L. Slayton, Robert M. Whittaker, Guy L. Hurst, Robert Butkin, Rick D. Chamberlain, Julie Corley, Lisa T. Davis, Karin Kriz, Yasodhara Mohanty, Sharon O'roke, Rebecca Pasternik-Ikard, Dan M. Peters, Wellon B. Poe, Rob Ramana, Linda K. Soper, W. Craig Sutter, Andrew Tevington, Victor N. Bird, Walter W. Roberson, Jane F. Wheeler, John Crittenden, Glen D. Hammonds, Gretchen Harris, Brita Haughland-Cantrell, James R. Johnson, Gretchen Zumwalt Kennedy, Barry K. Koonce, Julie Kramer, Joseph L. McCormick Iv, Douglas F. Price, Cooper Brett Robinson, Steven K. Snyder, L. Michelle Stephens, Judy A. Terry, Gay Abston Tudor, Charles A. Johnson, Charles Chapel, Gary L. Lumpkin, James F. Lane, Reta M. Strubhar, Ralph B. Hodges, Robert E. Lavender, Robert D. Sim
United States of America Ex Rel. Richard MacHado Relator-Appellant v. Hon. Walter H. Wilkins, Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, New York, 351 F.2d 892, 2d Cir. (1965)