Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-20-13184/USCOURTS-ca11-20-13184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Joshua Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-13184

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSHUA WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cr-00064-SCB-TGW-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-13184 Document: 76-1 Date Filed: 12/03/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 20-13184

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Williams appeals his 180-month sentence for being a 

felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1). Williams has moved for summary reversal arguing 

that, in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. 

United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), the district court erred in applying 

a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 

18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), because a jury did not determine whether the 

predicate offenses for the enhancement occurred on different occasions. The government does not oppose Williams’s motion.

Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of 

the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” 

or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 

1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We review a preserved constitutional challenge to a sentence de novo. United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825, 829 

(11th Cir. 2000).

The Armed Career Criminal Act requires that any defendant 

who violates section 922(g) serve a mandatory minimum sentence 

of 15 years if the defendant has 3 prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on different occasions. 18 

USCA11 Case: 20-13184 Document: 76-1 Date Filed: 12/03/2024 Page: 2 of 3
20-13184 Opinion of the Court 3

U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). In Erlinger, the Supreme Court held that the 

Fifth and Sixth Amendments require that any fact used to increase 

the range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed, including whether a defendant’s past offenses were committed on 

different occasions, must be either admitted by the defendant in a 

guilty plea or resolved by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 602 

U.S. at 834–35.

We grant Williams’s motion for summary reversal. There 

can be no substantial question that under Erlinger Williams’s judgment must be vacated and remanded for resentencing. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1161–62. A jury did not find beyond a 

reasonable doubt that his predicate convictions were committed 

on different occasions nor did Williams admit that they were 

through his guilty plea. See Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 834–35. Time is of 

the essence because Williams has served more than the upper 

bound of his unenhanced sentencing range. See Groendyke Transp., 

Inc., 406 F.2d at 1161–62. Because we grant Williams’s motion for 

summary reversal based on the Erlinger error, we do not address 

the merits of the other issues he raises on appeal.

We GRANT Williams’s unopposed motion for summary reversal, VACATE his sentence, and REMAND for resentencing.

USCA11 Case: 20-13184 Document: 76-1 Date Filed: 12/03/2024 Page: 3 of 3