Jeffery L. Davis v. USA

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11098
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFERY L. DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00348-SDM-CPT-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11098 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11098
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michelle Yard, appointed counsel for Jeffery Davis in this di-
rect criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further repre-
sentation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the en-
tire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of
the appeal is correct.
In reaching this conclusion, we have considered Mr. Davis’
response to his counsel’s motion to withdraw. Mr. Davis contends
that he was convicted of non-existent offenses for purposes of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Tay-
lor v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 2015, 2020-21 (2022) (holding that at-
tempted Hobbs Act robbery does not constitute a crime of violence
under § 924(3)(C)(A), the elements clause of the ACCA). We disa-
gree.
First,
Taylor does not affect Mr. Davis’ guilty pleas to the
Hobbs Act robbery offenses in Counts 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17.
Those offenses were charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and
Taylor
did not call into question the stand-alone validity of that provision.
Second,
Taylor does not affect Mr. Davis’ guilty pleas to the
firearm offenses charged in Counts 4, 6, and 10. Those offenses
were charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) & 2, and were
based on the use, carrying, or brandishing of a firearm by Mr. Davis
USCA11 Case: 22-11098 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-11098 Opinion of the Court 3
or his co-defendant during and in relation to the Hobbs Act rob-
beries charged in Counts 3, 5, and 9.
Taylor does not impact or call
into question Counts 4, 6, and 10 because the underlying Hobbs
Act robberies for the firearm charges (those set out in Counts 3, 5,
and 9) were not mere attempts. They were instead successful rob-
beries in which Mr. Davis and his co-defendant took money from
each of the establishments at issue.
See D.E. 142 at 36-37 (govern-
ment’s factual proffer for Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, & 10).
Because independent examination of the entire record re-
veals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
GRANTED, and Mr. Davis’ convictions and sentences are
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11098 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --