USA v. Anthony Swaby, No. 16-17780 (11th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-17780 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-17780 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60117-DTKH-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTHONY SWABY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (August 29, 2017) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-17780 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 Page: 2 of 3 Anthony Swaby appeals his 120-month, below-the-guideline-range sentence, after pleading guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On appeal, Swaby argues that he was incorrectly classified and sentenced as a career offender. Swaby argues that his previous conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1), does not qualify as a controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) because the statute does not contain a mens rea element. Although he acknowledges that in United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2014), we held that § 893.13 qualifies as a controlled substance offense, he argues that Smith conflicts with several Supreme Court decisions. We review constitutional sentencing challenges de novo, which includes the question of whether a defendant’s prior convictions qualify as controlled substance offenses for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). See Smith, 775 F.3d at 1265. And “[w]e are bound by [our] prior panel decisions unless and until we overrule them while sitting en banc, or they are overruled by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011). In other words, “[w]e are authorized to depart from a prior panel decision based upon an intervening Supreme Court decision only if that decision actually overruled or conflicted with it.” United States v. Marte, 356 F.3d 1336, 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 Case: 16-17780 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 Page: 3 of 3 Swaby relies on Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), and McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) for the proposition that Smith has been overruled. However we are not convinced that those cases overrule or conflict with Smith. Therefore, because no Supreme Court or en banc decision has overruled the holding from Smith, the prior panel precedent rule bounds us to that holding. See Marte, 356 F.3d at 1344. We affirm Swaby’s 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.
