Sherman Edward Williams v. USA, No. 15-15495 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-15495 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-15495 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 4:14-cv-00262-HLM; 4:09-cv-00011-HLM-WEJ-2 SHERMAN EDWARD WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (January 23, 2018) Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-15495 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 2 of 3 Sherman Williams appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his 192-month sentence for armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Williams argues that his sentence was illegal because Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), invalidated the “risk-of-force” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), and because his armed bank robbery conviction is not a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). Because we have previously concluded both that Johnson did not invalidate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) and that armed bank robbery is a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), we affirm. When we granted Williams a certificate of appealability (COA), we had not yet resolved the question of whether Johnson, which invalidated the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), also invalidated the “risk-offorce” clause contained in § 924(c)(3)(B). But we have since determined that it did not, and we are bound by this conclusion. See Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). Thus, in light of Ovalles, Williams’s first claim is without merit. We have also previously determined that a conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), “clearly meets the requirement for an underlying felony offense, as set out in § 924(c)(3)(A).” In re 2 Case: 15-15495 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 3 of 3 Hines, 824 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2016). Williams argues that In re Hines “has no precedential effect” here because it was an order on an application for a second or successive § 2255 motion, but we have made it clear that “our priorpanel-precedent rule applies with equal force as to prior panel decisions published in the context of applications to file second or successive petitions.” In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789, 794 (11th Cir. 2015). Thus, our holding in In re Hines is binding precedent, and it forecloses Williams’s second argument. Johnson did not invalidate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), and armed bank robbery is a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). Ovalles, 861 F.3d at 1259; In re Hines, 824 F.3d at 1337. Therefore, we affirm the denial of Williams’s motion to vacate his sentence. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
