United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A prior panel holding is binding on subsequent panels unless overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or the court sitting en banc.

A defendant appealing his sentence for drug trafficking argues that the district court erred in classifying him as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant contends that his prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon does not constitute a crime of violence because it does not present a serious potential risk of physical injury. Because a prior panel decision established that carrying a concealed weapon under Florida law is a crime of violence, the court applies this binding precedent. The court concludes that the district court correctly determined the defendant's career offender status.

509 citation events (509 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Gregory Brown, No. 19-12576 (11th Cir. Dec. 17, 2020)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Under fire: who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this case, and citations using reconsideration language. This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Reconsideration language United States v. Denzel Lafrance, No. 20-13317 (11th Cir. July 27, 2021)
“Even though LaFrance claims that Lockley was wrongly decided, we are bound by our prior decision, see Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352 , and moreover, the Supreme Court later reached the same conclusion, holding that Florida robbery under § 812.13 categorically qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause.”
Reconsideration language Jimmy Lee Franklin v. United States, No. 19-13422 (11th Cir. Apr. 14, 2020)
“Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352 ; see also Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 , 1303 (11th Cir. 7 Franklin acknowledges that his claim is foreclosed by binding precedent and that he is simply preserving the issue for Supreme Court review. 9 Case: 19-13422 Date Filed: 04/14/2020 Page: 10 of 10 2001) (“[W]e categorically reject any exception to the prior panel precedent rule based upon a perceived…”
Reconsideration language Deante Blackman v. United States, 805 F. App'x 993 (11th Cir. 2020)
“See Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352 . 6 Case: 16-17294 Date Filed: 03/18/2020 Page: 7 of 7 dismissal of Blackman’s § 2255 motion and remand to the district court to consider, in light of Davis and In re Hammoud, whether he is entitled to relief.”
Reconsideration language Victor John Walker v. United States, No. 16-16676 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2020)
“See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008).”
Reconsideration language United States v. Isaac Thomas, No. 18-10956 (11th Cir. Mar. 29, 2019)
“See Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352 ; United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (explaining that the prior panel precedent rule controls even if the later panel is “convinced [the earlier panel’s holding] is wrong.”).”
Reconsideration language United States v. Marsha Diane Elmore, No. 16-11221 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2018)
“See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] prior panel’s holding 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.”). 3 Case: 16-11221 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 4 of 6 follows (but not verbatim) the outline contained in the Federal Judicial Center’s…”
How cited ↗
Cited for
531 F.3d at 1352 Determining career offender status based on prior convictions242 citing casesexplaining that under the prior-panel-precedent rule, “a prior panel’s holding 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 banc24 citing courts put it this way · 195 listed here
  • United States v. Gregory Brown, No. 19-12576 (11th Cir. Dec. 17, 2020).unpublished
    (a prior panel’s holding 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.)
  • United States v. Leroy Richardson, No. 19-11745 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2020).unpublished
    ([A] prior panel’s holding 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.)
  • Frederick Whatley v. Warden, No. 13-12034 (11th Cir. Apr. 10, 2020).published 2 cites
    ([A] prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled Case: 13-12034 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 8 of 10 or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by thi…)
  • United States v. Ernesto Rodriguez, No. 19-12441 (11th Cir. Mar. 27, 2020).unpublished
    ([A] prior panel’s holding 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.)
  • Ashly Adarius Davenport v. United States, No. 16-15939, 2019 WL 6896688 (11th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019).unpublished
    ([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 th…)
  • United States v. Anthony Bernard Jimerson, No. 18-13355 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2019).unpublished
    ([A] prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc)
  • United States v. Marsha Diane Elmore, No. 16-11221 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2018).unpublished
    ([A] prior panel’s holding 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.)
  • United States v. Tyree Nathan Roberts, No. 17-12534 (11th Cir. May 29, 2018).unpublished
    ([A] prior panel’s holding 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.)
  • Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Exel, Inc., 884 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2018).published 2 cites
    (Under [the prior panel precedent] rule, a prior panel’s holding 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 sittin…)
  • United States v. Anthony v. White, No. 17-11360 (11th Cir. Jan. 29, 2018).unpublished
    (Under [the prior panel precedent] rule, a prior panel’s holding 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 sittin…)
Show 185 more citing cases
531 F.3d at 1350 Determining career offender status based on prior convictions12 citing cases11 listed here
Show 1 more citing case
531 F.3d at 1351 Determining if carrying a concealed weapon is a crime of violence9 citing casesholding that carrying a concealed weapon is not a violent felony because specific intent is not an element of the statute1 citing court put it this way
531 F.3d at 1349 Analyzing the definition of a crime of violence3 citing cases
243 F. App'x at 566 “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.”1 citing casethe opinion's own words at *566, quoted by 4 later opinions
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Bryan Lamar ARCHER, A.K.A. Bookbag, Defendant-Appellant
07-11488.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Sep 19, 2007.
Unpublished opinion
531 F.3d 1347
2008 WL 2521969
Maurice C. Grant, II, R. Fletcher Peacock, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant., Patricia D. Barksdale, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tjoflat, Hull, Kravitch.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Unpublished
Pinpoint authority: bottom 90%
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (2)
Citation check: this opinion cites a case at a citation that does not lead to it (marked in red below).
PER CURIAM:

Bryan Lamar Archer appeals his 188-month sentence for drug trafficking. Archer argues that the district court erred in determining that he qualifies as a career offender, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1, based, in part, on a prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Archer with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B) (count 1), distribution of crack cocaine (count 2), distribution of five or more grams of crack cocaine (counts 3 and 4), and possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of crack cocaine (count 5) all in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). Archer pleaded guilty to these charges.

Prior to sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSI”). In the PSI, the probation officer determined that Archer’s prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon constituted a “crime of violence” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a) and that his prior Florida felony conviction for selling crack cocaine was a “controlled substance offense” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b), thus making Archer a “career offender” under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a). The probation officer therefore recommended an enhanced total offense level of 31, after reducing the level for acceptance of responsibility, and an enhanced criminal history category of VI and calculated an advisory guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment.

At his March 2007 sentencing hearing, Archer objected to the probation officer’s determination that his prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon constituted a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). The district court overruled the objection and adopted the probation officer’s determination that Archer is a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G.[*566] § 4Bl.l(a). The district court sentenced Archer to 188 months’ incarceration. This appeal follows.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Spell, 44 F.3d 986, 938[incorrect citation] (11th Cir.1995).

A defendant qualifies as a career offender if

(1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction;
(2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and
(3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.

U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a). A “crime of violence” as used in subsection (2) is defined in section 4B1.2 as

any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that (1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or (2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.

Archer argues that the crime of carrying a concealed weapon does not sufficiently present a “potential risk of physical injury to another” to satisfy this definition of crime of violence and that the district court therefore erred in considering him a career offender. Archer concedes, however, that this argument is foreclosed by binding precedent of this court.

In United States v. Gilbert, 138 F.3d 1371, 1372 (11th Cir.1998), this court addressed this very issue and concluded that carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Florida law is a crime of violence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), and that a prior conviction for such a crime may appropriately determine career offender status for sentencing purposes. This court reiterated that holding in United States v. Adams, 316 F.3d 1196, 1197 (11th Cir.2003) and refused to revisit an issue so definitively decided previously. Adams emphasized that “[t]he law of this circuit is ‘emphatic’ that only the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc can judicially overrule a prior panel decision.” Id. at 1197 n. 1 (quoting Cargill v. Turpin, 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir.1997)).

We rely on the established law of this court and conclude that the district court correctly determined that Archer’s previous conviction for carrying a concealed weapon constitutes a “crime of violence” and that based on that prior conviction, along with his other prior conviction for a “controlled substance offense,” he may be considered a career criminal under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a). The district court therefore did not err by sentencing Archer as a career criminal pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Archer’s sentence is affirmed.