717 Fed.Appx. 974 (11th Cir. 2018), 17-12973, Sanchez v. United States
|Citation:||717 Fed.Appx. 974|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||REGGIE DAVID SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||For REGGIE DAVID SANCHEZ, Petitioner - Appellant: Jan Christopher Smith, II, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, MIAMI, FL. For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee: Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida, Jason W...|
|Judge Panel:||Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||April 05, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-22552-UU, 1:11-cr-20786-UU-1.
For REGGIE DAVID SANCHEZ, Petitioner - Appellant: Jan Christopher Smith, II, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, MIAMI, FL.
For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee: Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida, Jason Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, MIAMI, FL; Sivashree Sundaram, U.S. Attorney's Office, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL.
Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reggie David Sanchez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his consecutive 84-month sentence for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court granted a certificate of appealability (" COA" ) on the issue of whether Sanchez's conviction for bank robbery qualified as a violent felony under § 924(c)'s use-of-force clause.
When we review the denial of a motion to vacate, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we review legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1239 (11th Cir. 2014). Whether a particular claim is procedurally barred is reviewed de novo. Spencer v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 609 F.3d 1170, 1177 (11th Cir. 2010). We review de novo whether an offense qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). United States v. McGuire, 706 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir. 2013). The scope of our review of an unsuccessful § 2255 motion is limited to the issues enumerated in the COA. McKay v. United States, 657...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP