Susan Treat and Ashley Walker 1 filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Daniel Lowe, an investigator with the Burke County Sheriffs Office in Florida, violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering and searching their residence without a search warrant or exigent circumstances and by unlawfully seizing and detaining them at gunpoint. Lowe had entered their home by mistake; he was supposed to execute a search warrant two doors down. 2 Lowe moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, concluding that a jury could find that Lowe failed to engage in reasonable efforts to avoid erroneously executing 'the search warrant and that his failure violated Treat and Walker’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Lowe appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment on Treat and Walker’s § 1983 claims. 3 After careful review, we find no error in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order. The bulk of Lowe’s arguments on appeal concern the district court’s analysis of our decision in Hartsfield v. Lemacks, 50 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1995), as it pertains to this case. We agree with the district court’s thoughtful examination of Hartsfield.

Lowe cites an unpublished decision of this Court rendered after the district court denied him qualified immunity, White v. McLain, 648 Fed.Appx. 838 (11th Cir. 2016), as illustrative of why the district court’s analysis of Hartsfield was erroneous. Specifically, Lowe argues that White makes plain that “Hartsfield did not give Lowe fair warning that participating in a search team with a role limited to making arrests would make him responsible for ensuring the warrant was executed at the *871 correct location, especially when he expressly understood this was not his job.” Appellant’s Br. at 28. We disagree.

As a preliminary matter, Lowe’s role clearly was not limited to making arrests: he was executing a search warrant at a designated location. Moreover, White— which does not bind this panel — stands only for the proposition that it is not clearly established “that an officer’s well-intentioned attempts to ascertain and identify the property described in a warrant are not reasonable simply because they lead to an error, or because more accurate means of ascertaining the property’s identity were available.” 648 FedAppx. at 841. The White panel contrasted its facts with those in Hwrtsfield, where the officer in question “ ‘did nothing to make sure’ ” he had the correct address and was denied qualified immunity. Id. at 842 (quoting Hartsfield, 50 F.3d at 955). As the district court explained here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Treat and Walker, Lowe did not engage in “well-intentioned' attempts,” but rather “did nothing” to ascertain the correct address at which to execute the search warrant. Id. at 841-43. White, therefore, is inapposite.

We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment to Lowe.

AFFIRMED.