[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 12573 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17

- cr - 00166

- MHC

- RGV

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus
PATRICK ANTONIO CEASAR, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (March 11, 2019) Before WILSON , JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-12573 Date Filed: 03/11/2019 Page: 1 of 42 Patrick Ceasar appeals his conviction and sentence for using a firearm during a crime of violence, carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Because Ceasar’s challenges are foreclosed by binding precedent, we affirm. Ceasar pled guilty to one count of carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2), and one count of using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (the carjacking), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Under § 924(c), a “crime of violence” is a felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another” or “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.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)

- (B). The former definition is called the “elements clause” and the latter is known as the “residual clause.” See Ovalles v. United States , 905 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2018) (en banc)

. Before sentencing, Ceasar filed a memorandum in which he objected to his conviction and sentence for the § 924(c) offense, arguing that the statute’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in
Sessions v. Di maya , 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). He further argued that carjacking did not alternatively qualify as a crime of violence within the meaning of § 924(c)’s elements clause. Although Ceasar acknowledged that this Court held otherwise in In re Smith , 829 F.3d 1276

Case: 18-12573 Date Filed: 03/11/2019 Page: 2 of 43 (11th Cir. 2016), he argued that In re Smith was wrongly decided. The district court overruled Ceasar’s objections, reasoning that regardless of the constitutionality of § 924(c)’s residual clause, In re Smith was binding precedent as to the elements clause

. The court sentenced Ceasar to a total of 141 months’ imprisonment. This is Ceasar’s appeal. Ceasar renews his arguments on appeal , contending that § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and that his carjacking offense does not alternatively qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause

. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to determine the constitutionality of § 924(c)’s residual clause. See United States v. Davis , No. 18

- 431, 2019 WL 98544 (Jan. 4, 2019); but see Ovalles , 905 F.3d at 1234 (holding that the residual clause is not unconstitutionally vague and applying a conduct

- based approach to that definition of “crime of violence”). As h e acknowledges , however, this Court is bound by In re Smith to conclude that a carjacking conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause. See United States v. St. Hubert , 909 F.3d 335, 345

- 46 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that published orders on requests for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, like Smith , are binding outside the second or successive context); United
States v. Brown , 342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a prior panel precedent binds subsequent panels unless or until it is overruled or

Case: 18-12573 Date Filed: 03/11/2019 Page: 3 of 44 undermined to the point of abrogation by this Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court). We therefore must conclude, as the district court did, that Ceasar’s § 924(c) conviction and sentence, predicated on his carjacking conviction,

are valid notwithstanding any remaining questions regarding the constitutionality of § 924(c)’s residual clause. For these reasons, we affirm Ceasar’s conv ictions and sentence. AFFIRMED. Case: 18-12573 Date Filed: 03/11/2019 Page: 4 of 4