Case: 18-11662 Date Filed: 07/30/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11662 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00034-TJC-MCR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER SHAMAR MCCAIN, Custody, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (July 30, 2019) Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-11662 Date Filed: 07/30/2019 Page: 2 of 6 In 2014, Christopher McCain pleaded guilty to two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (“counts 1 and 3”), and two counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence,” namely, the Hobbs Act robbery offenses charged in counts 1 and 3, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (“counts 2 and 4”). The district court sentenced him to a total of 385 months’ imprisonment, consisting of one month on each of counts 1 and 3, set to run concurrently with each other, followed by 84 months’ imprisonment as to count 2, set to run consecutive to all other sentences, and 300 months’ imprisonment as to count 4, also set to run consecutive to all other sentences. On appeal, McCain argues that his § 924(c) convictions in counts 2 and 4 are invalid, because: (1) § 924(c)(3)(B)’s “residual clause” is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) his two companion convictions for Hobbs Act robbery do not qualify as “crime of violence” predicates under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s “elements clause.” Generally, we review de novo whether a particular offense is a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335, 345-46 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1394 (2019). However, when a defendant fails to object to a sentencing error before the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 842 (11th Cir. 2009). Under plain-error review, “[a]n appellate court may not correct an error the defendant failed to raise in the district court unless there is: (1) error, (2) that is 2 Case: 18-11662 Date Filed: 07/30/2019 Page: 3 of 6 plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). To be plain, “the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute.” Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (11th Cir. 2009). And “[i]t is the law of this [C]ircuit that, at least where the explicit language of a statue or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it.” United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003). Moreover, under our prior 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 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals