Court Opinion

ID: 9890637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 19:00:50.877655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.555564
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10506    Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 10/13/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10506
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MAURICE DANIELS,
       a.k.a. Reece,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20277-CMA-1
USCA11 Case: 23-10506      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 10/13/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10506

                            ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and JILL
       PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Maurice Daniels, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial
       of his motion to correct an alleged clerical error in his judgment of
       conviction. Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We affirm.
               As the district court ruled, Daniels’s judgment accurately re-
       flects his six offenses of conviction: two counts of conspiring to
       commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); two counts of
       Hobbs Act robbery, id.; and two counts of possessing a firearm in
       furtherance of a crime of violence, id. § 924(c)(1)(A). Insofar as Dan-
       iels purports to raise in his opening brief a challenge under United
       States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), we will not consider it be-
       cause he already pursued a Davis-based claim in a counseled suc-
       cessive motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and any challenge to the
       validity of his convictions must be brought in a motion to vacate,
       id. See McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d
       1076, 1081 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc).
              We AFFIRM the denial of Daniels’s motion to correct a
       clerical error.