[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-10200

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cr-00169-SDM-TGW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK D. CUMMINGS, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 17, 2020)

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-10200 Date Filed: 04/17/2020 Page: 1 of 5
2

Patrick Cummings was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1951(b)(3), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He appeals his § 924(c) conviction and his 

sentence, which was enhanced under the “career offender” provision of the 

Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. After careful review, we affirm 

Cummings’s § 924(c) conviction but vacate his sentence and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cummings was charged with one count of Hobbs Act robbery (Count 1), and 

one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence—the robbery (Count 

2). Although he initially pled guilty to both charges, the district court permitted 

him to withdraw his plea on Count 2 when he argued that Hobbs Act robbery did 

not qualify as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c). The district court thereafter 

rejected Cummings’s argument. Cummings proceeded to a bench trial on Count 2 

and was convicted. 

The probation office prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSR”), 

which classified Cummings as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. A 

defendant is a career offender if he is at least 18 years old, the offense of 

conviction “is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance 

offense,” and the defendant “has at least two prior felony convictions of either a 

crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). The 

Case: 18-10200 Date Filed: 04/17/2020 Page: 2 of 5
3

PSR classified Cummings as a career offender based on his Count 1 Hobbs Act 

robbery conviction qualifying as a crime of violence and based on two prior 

convictions that the PSR deemed crimes of violence.1

 Cummings did not object to 

the use of his Hobbs Act robbery conviction to enhance his sentence. The district 

court applied the career offender enhancement and sentenced Cummings to 240 

months’ imprisonment on Count 1 and a consecutive 84-month sentence on Count 

2. Cummings has appealed.

On appeal Cummings challenges his conviction and sentence. He first 

argues that his conviction under § 924(c) should be vacated because Hobbs Act 

robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under that statute’s definition. 

This Court, however, has held that Hobbs Act robbery categorically satisfies

§ 924(c)’s definition. United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335, 345-46 (11th Cir. 

2018). We are bound to follow St. Hubert unless or until it is overruled or 

undermined to the point of abrogation by this Court sitting en banc or by the 

Supreme Court. United States v. Brown, 342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003). 

We therefore affirm Cummings’s conviction.

Second, Cummings challenges his sentence, arguing that Hobbs Act robbery 

does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under the definition in the career offender 

1 Because we hold that the district court erred in applying the career offender 

enhancement, we need not address Cummings’s argument that one of his prior convictions, for 

aggravated assault under Florida law, also does not satisfy the “crime of violence” definition. 

Case: 18-10200 Date Filed: 04/17/2020 Page: 3 of 5
4

guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). This definition is distinct from the one in § 924(c). 

See United States v. Eason, et al., No. 16-15413, 16-17796, 18-12848 953 F.3d 

1184, 2020 WL 1429110, *4 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2020) (explaining that St. Hubert 

is not binding in the guidelines context because § 924(c)’s “crime of violence” 

definition is different from the one in the career offender guideline). Because 

Cummings makes this argument for the first time on appeal, it is subject to plain 

error review, meaning he must show (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; 

(3) it affected his substantial rights; and (4) it seriously affected the fairness of the 

judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). 

“[W]hether a legal question was settled or unsettled at the time of trial, it is enough 

that an error be ‘plain’ at the time of appellate consideration for the second part of 

the four-part Olano test to be satisfied.” Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 

279 (2013) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

While Cummings’s case was pending on appeal, this Court held that Hobbs 

Act robbery is not crime of violence under the career offender guideline. Eason, 

2020 WL 1429110, *2. Thus, Cummings has shown an error that is plain. See 

Henderson, 568 U.S. at 279. Because the error rendered Cummings eligible for the 

career offender enhancement, it affected his substantial rights. See MolinaMartinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1346-47 (2018). And such an error 

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial 

Case: 18-10200 Date Filed: 04/17/2020 Page: 4 of 5
5

proceedings. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, 736-37; Rosales-Mireles v. United 

States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1911 (2018) (“In the ordinary case, as here, the failure to 

correct a plain Guidelines error that affects a defendant’s substantial rights will 

seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.”). Since he has satisfied the test set forth in Olano, we vacate 

Cummings’s career-offender-enhanced sentence. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, REMANDED.

Case: 18-10200 Date Filed: 04/17/2020 Page: 5 of 5