Case: 18-10585 Date Filed: 11/05/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10585
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 2:16-cv-08081-LSC,
2:00-cr-00188-LSC-JEO-1
DONCEY FRANK BOYKIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(November 5, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Doncey Boykin, a federal prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his successive
motion to vacate his sentence, which he obtained our permission to file. 28 U.S.C.
Case: 18-10585 Date Filed: 11/05/2019 Page: 2 of 3
§ 2255(a), (h). We granted Boykin a certificate of appealability to address whether
the district court erred in dismissing his “motion on the ground that his prior
convictions for Alabama second-degree robbery still qualified as a violent felony
under the Armed Career Criminal Act in the light of Johnson v. United States,
135
S. Ct. 2551 (2015).” We affirm.
Our recent decision in United States v. Hunt, No. 17-12365,
2019 WL
5588965 (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 2019), forecloses Boykin’s challenge to his sentence.
In Hunt, we held that second-degree robbery under Alabama law qualifies as a
predicate offense under the elements clause of the Act.
Id. at *2. That conclusion
was inevitable because the use-of-force element is the same for all three degrees of
robbery in Alabama,
id., and we already had held in In re Welch,
884 F.3d 1319,
1324 (11th Cir. 2018), that first degree robbery in Alabama is categorically a
violent felony because it has as an element that the offender use force intended to
overcome physical resistance by another person.
Boykin argues that the district court should have denied rather than
dismissed his motion, but dismissal was appropriate. Boykin failed to satisfy the
requirements to file a “second or successive” motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Section
2244(b)(4) directs that “[a] district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a
second or successive application that the court of appeals has authorized to be filed
2
Case: 18-10585 Date Filed: 11/05/2019 Page: 3 of 3
unless the applicant shows that the claim satisfies the requirements of this section.”
Id.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Boykin’s motion.
3
