[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 13578
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus WILLEMS CALIXTE, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:20

- cr

- 60153

- WPD

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13578 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 Page: 1 of 52 Opinion of the Court 21

- 13578

Before J ORDAN , N EWSOM , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Willems Calixte, Jr. appeals his conviction and sentence forpossession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). On appeal, Calixte challenges the applicability of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (“ACCA”) and the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). After careful review of the parties’ arguments, we affirm.

I
We review de novo whether a prior state conviction qualifies as a “violent felony” under the ACCA. Se e United States v. Howard
, 742 F.3d 1334, 1341 (11th Cir. 2014 ). However, “we review unpreserved sentencing objections only for plain error.” United States v. Corbett
, 921 F.3d 1032, 1037 (11th Cir. 2019). The ACCA requires that any person who violate s 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years when he has three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses committed on separate occasions. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). In Borden v. United States , the Supreme Court concluded that a criminal offense with a mens rea of recklessness cannot qualify as a “ violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause to enhance a USCA11 Case: 21-13578 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 Page: 2 of 521

- 13578 Opinion of the Court 3

defendant’s sentence. 593 U.S. 420, 423

– 24 , 429 (2021) (plurality opinion); id. at 446 (Thomas, J., concurring ). 1

In Somers v. United States
, we relied on the Florida Supreme Court’s determin ation that state

- law aggravated assault require s a
mens rea of at least knowing conduct and could not be committed recklessly to hold that Florida aggravated assault “categorically qualifies” as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause, even after Borden

. 66 F.4th 890, 89 6 (11th Cir. 2023)

. And i n United States v. Fritts , we held that a conviction under Florida’s armed

- robbery statute “categorically qualifie s ” as a violent felony under the ACCA based on the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation that a violent act was required. 841 F.3d 937, 942

– 43 (11th Cir. 2016). Under the 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 or this c ourt sitting en banc .” United States v. Archer , 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008 ). Here, as an initial matter, because Calixte failed to challenge the applicability of the ACCA before the district court, we review his c urrent arguments only for plain error. Corbett
, 921 F.3d at
1037. We find no error, plain or otherwise, because Calixte’s

1 When the Supreme Court decides a case and “no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may beviewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds. ” Marks v. United States , 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (quotation marks omitted). USCA11 Case: 21-13578 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 Page: 3 of 54 Opinion of the Court 21

- 13578

arguments that his aggravated assault and armed robbery convictions are not violent felonies under the ACCA are foreclosed by our bi nding precedent. Somers , 66 F.4th at 890, 896 ; Fritts , 841 F.3d at
942

– 43. To the extent that Calixte contends that our precedent was overturned by Borden
, we disagree; th at decision d id not overturn

or undermine our previous holdings to the point of abrogation. See Somers , 66 F.4th at 89 5

– 96; Archer , 531 F.3d at 1352

. 2 Accordingly, we affirm in this respect.

II Under federal law, a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than on e year’s imprisonment may not possess a firearm or ammunition that has moved through interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U .S.C. § 922(g) (1) . In United States v. Rozier , we held that § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on possession of firearms by felons was a “constitutional avenue to restrict the Second Amendment right of certain classes of people

. ” 598 F.3d 768, 771 (11th Cir. 2010)

. We have since held that Rozier was not abrogated by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass ’ n, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1 (2022). U

nited States v. Dubois , 94 F.4th 1284, 1293 (11th Cir. 2024). Therefore , Calixte’s argument that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment in light of Bruen is foreclosed by our binding precedent.

2 Because at least three of Calixte’s prior felonies were qualifying violent felonies under our binding precedent, we decline to examine whether a Florida armed

- kidnapping con viction qualifies as a violent felony

. USCA11 Case: 21-13578 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 Page: 4 of 521

- 13578 Opinion of the Court 5 Accordingly, we affirm in this respect as well.
AFFIRM ED. USCA11 Case: 21-13578 Document: 94-1 Date Filed: 06/18/2024 Page: 5 of 5