Case: 18-14403 Date Filed: 07/02/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14403
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:18-cr-00172-AKK-TMP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JENNIFER LYNN HOPPER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(July 2, 2019)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14403 Date Filed: 07/02/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Jennifer Lynn Hopper appeals her 168-month sentence, imposed after she
pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 or more grams of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). She argues the sentencing
court improperly included a prior uncounseled conviction in calculating her
criminal history score under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. She contends the
assessment of criminal history points for a prior uncounseled conviction violates a
defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Hopper acknowledges this Court squarely rejected her argument in United
States v. Acuna-Reyna,
677 F.3d 1282, 1285–86 (11th Cir. 2012), but asks us to
reverse that holding. Our panel cannot do so. This Circuit’s “prior-panel
precedent rule requires subsequent panels of the court to follow the precedent of
the first panel to address the relevant issue, unless and until the first panel’s
holding is overruled by the Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court.” Scott
v. United States,
890 F.3d 1239, 1257 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted).
Hopper has not pointed to any en banc or Supreme Court decision overruling
Acuna-Reyna. Instead, she has identified what she sees as flaws in Acuna-Reyna’s
analysis. But we are not at liberty to depart from prior panel precedent because we
might disagree with an earlier decision of our court. See United States v. Lee,
886
F.3d 1161, 1163 n.3 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (explaining the prior-panel
precedent rule applies even if “a prior case was wrongly decided,” “failed to
2
Case: 18-14403 Date Filed: 07/02/2019 Page: 3 of 3
consider certain critical issues or arguments,” or “lacked adequate legal analysis to
support its conclusions”).
In any event, we agree with the government that any error in scoring
Hopper’s prior uncounseled conviction was harmless. See United States v. Monzo,
852 F.3d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 2017). The District Court assigned one criminal
history point to Hopper’s prior uncounseled conviction, bringing her total criminal
history points to 18. Without it, Hopper would have had 17 criminal history
points. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant with 13 or more criminal
history points is assigned a criminal history category of VI. USSG Ch. 5, pt. A.
Thus, even if the prior uncounseled conviction had not been scored, Hopper would
have netted the same criminal history category.
AFFIRMED.
3
