United States v. Golden
11th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026United States v. Christopher Pinkston 11th Cir.
- 2026United States v. Mario Martinez Williams 11th Cir.
- 2025United States v. Charles Brown, Jr. 11th Cir.
- 2025United States v. Rai Martinez 11th Cir.
- 2025United States v. Louis Pasquazzi 11th Cir.
- 2025United States v. Daniel Quintero 11th Cir.
- 2024Freeman v. United States M.D. Fla.
- 2023United States v. Samuel Lee Lynch 11th Cir.
- 2023United States v. Jamaal A. Hameen 11th Cir.
- 2023Altamirano v. United States S.D. Fla.
Cites 1 statute
- Penalties
Cites 5 cases
- United States of America v. Garcia
- Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI (Medium)
- Smith v. GTE Corp.
- In re Hunt
- United States v. Fritts
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren Travis GOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges
- Before JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and PROCTOR, District Judge.
Attorneys
- Wifredo A. Ferrer, Susan R. Osborne, Laura Thomas Rivero, Emily M. Smachet-ti, Miami, FL, Aaron M. Papero, West Palm Beach, FL, U.S. Attorney’s Office, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
- Brenda Greenberg Bryn, Fort Lauder-dale, FL, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Miami, FL, Robin Cindy Rosen-Evans, West Palm Beach, FL, Federal Public Defender’s Office, for Defendant-Appellant.
The issue in this appeal is whether a Florida conviction for aggravated assault, see Fla. Stat. § 784.021, constitutes a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) cmt. n.1 (incorporating the definition of “crime of violence” from U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2). Mr. Golden contends that it does not, but his argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See Turner v. Warden Coleman FCI, 709 F.3d 1328, 1337-38 & n.6 (11th Cir. 2013). Although Turner addressed the “elements” clause of the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), that clause is identical to the elements clause of § 4B1.2(a)(1). See United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 940 (11th Cir. 2016). As a result, Turner is binding.
Mr. Golden argues that Turner did not correctly apply United States v. Palomino Garcia, 606 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2010). And some members of our court have questioned the continuing validity of Turner in light of cases like Descamps v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013). See In re Hunt, 835 F.3d 1277, 1288 (11th Cir. 2016) (Jill Pryor, J., concurring, joined by Wilson and Rosenbaum, JJ.). But even if Turner is flawed, that does not give us, as a later panel, the authority to disregard it. See Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e categorically reject any exception to the prior panel precedent rule based upon a perceived defect in the prior panel’s reasoning or analysis as it relates to the law in existence at that time.”).
Affirmed.