Filed: Dec. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 19-12440 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 19-12440 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-24033-JEM; 1:15-cr-20342-JEM-1 ABUID ROMAN, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (December 27, 2019) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Summary: Case: 19-12440 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 19-12440 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-24033-JEM; 1:15-cr-20342-JEM-1 ABUID ROMAN, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (December 27, 2019) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: ..
More
Case: 19-12440 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12440
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-24033-JEM; 1:15-cr-20342-JEM-1
ABUID ROMAN, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 27, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
I.
Abuid Roman, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the District Court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence.
Case: 19-12440 Date Filed: 12/27/2019 Page: 2 of 2
The government has moved for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing
schedule because, according to binding precedent in this Circuit, carjacking is a
crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause, and therefore
the government argues that Roman’s sentence is valid. We agree.
II.
Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties
is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to
the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162
(5th Cir. 1969).1 Because Roman’s argument is foreclosed by binding precedent in
this Circuit, see In re Smith,
829 F.3d 1276, 1280 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding that
carjacking is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause); Ovalles
v. United States,
905 F.3d 1300, 1304 (11th Cir. 2018) (reaffirming that carjacking
is a crime of violence under the elements clause), the government is clearly correct
as a matter of law that Roman is not entitled to relief.
Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is
GRANTED, and its motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
1
All decisions of the former Fifth Circuit announced before October 1, 1981, are binding
precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc).
2