[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 11565 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s . 0:16

- cv - 61493

- WPD ; 0:13

- cr - 60267

- WPD

- 1

JEAN CAZY, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (July 6, 2020) Before WILSON , MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-11565 Date Filed: 07/06/2020 Page: 1 of 52 Jean Cazy, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and his corresponding sentence

. He argues that his convicti on is now invalid in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Davis , 588 U.S.

___ , 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) . Although the government opposed Cazy’s motion in the district court, it now concedes that Cazy’s § 924(c) (1)(A) conviction must be vacated. After careful consideration, we reverse the district court’s denial of Cazy’s § 2255 motion and remand for resentencing

. I. In 2014, Cazy was convicted of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count 1); conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 2); attempt to posse ss more than 500 grams, but less than 5 kilograms of cocaine, in vio lation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 3); conspiracy to use, carry, or possess a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o) (Count 4) ; using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of the crime of violenc e set forth in Count 1, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count 5); using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of the drug

trafficking offense s set forth in Counts 2 and 3, in violation of § 924(c)(1)(A)

Case: 18-11565 Date Filed: 07/06/2020 Page: 2 of 53 (Count 6)

. He was sentenced t o a total term of 248

- months imprisonment, which was later reduced to 211

- months imprisonment

. In 2016, Cazy filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing, among other things, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States , 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), invalidated his § 924(c) conviction in Count 5. The district court denied Cazy’s moti on as to Count 5 , holding that Cazy could not benefit from Johnson because of the concurrent sentence doctrine. Cazy appealed, and a panel of this C ourt vacated and remanded, holding that the district court erred in applying the concurrent sentence doctri ne . Cazy v. United States , 717 F. App’x 954, 956 (2017) (per curiam) (unpublished)

. On remand, the district court denied Cazy’s claim based on our decision in Ovalles v. United States , 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017), which held that Johnson did not inval idate the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Id. at 1265. Cazy appealed, and while his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Davis , which extended its holding in Johnson to § 924(c)’s residual clause. See 139 S. Ct. at 2326, 2336. We thereafter granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the issue of whether Cazy’s “18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction for the crime of using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in fu rtherance of a companion offense of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is unconstitutional in light of [ Davis ].” On appeal, Cazy says his § 924(c) conviction

Case: 18-11565 Date Filed: 07/06/2020 Page: 3 of 54 in Count 5 is unconstitutional because it is premised on Hobbs Act conspiracy, which no longe r qualifies as a crime of violence. 1 The government concedes that Cazy’s conviction must be vacated in light of Davis and this C ourt’s subsequent precedent.
II. In reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, we review the court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error

. Brown v. United States , 942 F.3d 1069, 1072 (11th Cir. 2019 ) (per curiam)

. III.
U nder § 924(c) , a person who uses a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence is subject to a mandatory consecutive prison sentence . 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). A “crime of violence” is defined as an offense that is a felony and: “(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” Id. § 924(c)(3). We commonly refer to § 924(c)(3)(A) as the “elements clause” and to § 924(c)(3)(B) as the

1 Cazy has filed a supplemental brief arguing that his § 924(c) conviction in Count 6 is no longer valid

. Because the scope of our review is limited to the issue specified in the COA

— whether Cazy’s § 924(c) conviction in Count 5 is invalid after Davis

— we do not consider his argument s as to Count 6

. See McKay v. United States , 657 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th Cir. 2011).

Case: 18-11565 Date Filed: 07/06/2020 Page: 4 of 55 “residual clause.” In Davis , the Supreme Court struck down § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague. 139 S. Ct. at 2323

– 24, 2336. This C ourt has since held that Davis announced a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. See In re Hammoud , 931 F.3d 1032, 1037

– 39 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam)

. This C ourt has
also held that co nspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause. Brown , 942 F.3d at 1075

– 76. Cazy’s conviction for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s now

- defunct residual clause in light
of Davis , nor does it qualify under § 924(c)’s elements clause in light of Brown

. Because Cazy’s § 924(c) conviction in Count 5 was predicated solely on conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery , his conviction is invalid and must be vacated. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of Cazy’s § 2255 motion and remand for resentencing. 2
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

2 The government invites us to “remand [] with limited instructions to vacate only Count 5’s § 924(c) sentence, but not permit a full resentencing. ” Br. of Appellee at 8 n.4. That is because , as the government points out, Cazy’s 60

- month sentence for his Count 5 conviction was imposed concurren tly with a separate 60

- month sentence for his § 924(c) conviction in Count 6, which is unaffected by this opinion. We decline to issue any such instruction , and instead allow the district court to decide in t he first instance the government’s request for limited resentencing

.

Case: 18-11565 Date Filed: 07/06/2020 Page: 5 of 5