Court Opinion

ID: 9396165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 18:01:37.592344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.368691
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 20-14077    Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 05/19/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 20-14077
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JOHANN BRITO,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00060-ODE-RGV-5
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 20-14077      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  20-14077

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Johann Brito, a counseled federal prisoner, appeals the dis-
       trict court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate.
       The government, in turn, has moved for summary affirmance.
               Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat-
       ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out-
       come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap-
       peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
       1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969). A motion for summary affirmance post-
       pones the due date for the filing of any remaining brief until this
       Court rules on the motion. See 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
              Federal prisoners may obtain post conviction relief and set
       aside prior convictions when a sentence “was imposed in violation
       of the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
       2255(a). When reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2255 mo-
       tion, we review questions of law de novo and factual ﬁndings for
       clear error. See Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir.
       2004).
USCA11 Case: 20-14077      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       20-14077               Opinion of the Court                          3

               Federal law provides for a mandatory consecutive sentence
       for any defendant who uses or carries a ﬁrearm during a crime of
       violence or a drug traﬃcking crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). For
       the purposes of § 924(c), a “crime of violence” means 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.
       § 924(c)(3)(A), (B). The Supreme Court has referred to
       § 924(c)(3)(A) as the “elements clause” and to § 924(c)(3)(B) as the
       “residual clause.” United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323, 2336
       (2019). The Supreme Court held in Davis that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s resid-
       ual clause was unconstitutionally vague. See Id.
              The Supreme Court recently resolved a circuit split and held
       that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a predicate
       crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s “elements clause,” which
       “covers oﬀenses that have as an element the use, attempted use, or
       threatened use of physical force against the person or property of
       another.” Taylor v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2015, 2019-21 (2022),
       overruling in part United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335 (11th Cir.
       2018).
USCA11 Case: 20-14077      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  20-14077

              On collateral review, relief is only proper where there is
       “grave doubt about whether a trial error of federal law had sub-
       stantial and injurious eﬀect or inﬂuence in determining the jury’s
       verdict.” Foster v. United States, 996 F.3d 1100, 1107 (11th Cir. 2021)
       (quotation marks omitted) (addressing errors in both the indict-
       ment and jury instructions). This calls for “more than a reasonable
       possibility that the error was harmful” and requires “actual preju-
       dice” before a court may order relief. Id. (quotation marks omit-
       ted). In determining whether the error resulted in actual prejudice,
       we ask “whether the error substantially inﬂuenced the jury’s deci-
       sion.” Id.
               For example, in Granda v. United States, 990 F.3d 1272, 1285
       (11th Cir. 2021), the defendant’s § 924(c) conviction was premised
       on conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act
       robbery, drug traﬃcking oﬀenses, and attempted carjacking. We
       concluded that, although conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery
       was no longer a valid predicate oﬀense in light of Davis, the remain-
       ing predicate convictions remained valid predicates. See id. at 1285.
       Because the oﬀenses were inextricably intertwined and the rec-
       ord—including the indictment and general verdict form—did not
       clarify which conviction the jury relied on, we concluded that the
       defendant could not make the requisite showing. There was “little
       doubt that if the jury found that Granda conspired to possess a ﬁre-
       arm in furtherance of his conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act rob-
       bery, it also found that he conspired to possess a ﬁrearm in further-
       ance of the other crime-of-violence and drug-traﬃcking predicates
       of which the jury convicted him.” Id. at 1285, 1289, 1293. We also
USCA11 Case: 20-14077      Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       20-14077               Opinion of the Court                          5

       rejected the argument that it is improper to rely on an alternative
       valid predicate based on Stromberg v. People of State of Cal., 283 U.S.
       359 (1931), when conducting a harmless error analysis. See Granda,
       990 F.3d at 1293 94. And we rejected the contention that we must
       apply the categorical approach to a § 924(c) conviction to presume
       that that conviction rested on an invalid predicate. See id. at 1295
       96. Ultimately, we concluded that a defendant cannot succeed on
       the merits of his challenge if there were other valid predicates that
       the jury could have relied on to support his conviction. See id. at
       1296.
              Under our prior panel precedent rule, a prior panel’s holding
       is binding unless it has been overruled or abrogated by the Supreme
       Court or by this Court sitting en banc. See In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d
       789, 794 (11th Cir. 2015). Based on Granda, we grant summary af-
       ﬁrmance as to the district court’s denial of Mr. Brito’s § 2255 mo-
       tion. Mr. Brito’s drug-related convictions (Counts 10 and 11) re-
       main valid predicates for his § 924(c) oﬀense. Moreover, his valid
       and invalid predicates are inextricably linked such that he cannot
       show a substantial likelihood that the jury actually relied on the in-
       valid predicate.
             Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion for sum-
       mary aﬃrmance.
              AFFIRMED.