USCA11 Case: 24-12161 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/24/2025 Page: 1 of 6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12161 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

KEITH TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80048-DMM-1 ____________________

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Keith Taylor, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for sentence reduction and motion for reconsideration. Taylor sought to reduce his 276-month USCA11 Case: 24-12161 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/24/2025 Page: 2 of 6

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12161

sentence for felon in possession of a firearm and possession of co- caine with intent to distribute. The district court denied Taylor’s sentence-reduction motion because (1) Taylor failed to show the existence of any extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sen- tence reduction, (2) Taylor would pose a danger to the community if he was released, and (3) the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against a sentence reduction. After review, 1 we affirm. A district court may reduce a term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(1)(A) if (1) there are extraordinary and compelling rea- sons for doing so, (2) doing so would not endanger any person or the community, and (3) the § 3553(a) factors favor doing so. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021). A district court may deny a sentence-reduction motion based on any one of those grounds. Id. at 1237-38. One extraordinary and compelling cir- cumstance that could warrant a sentence reduction is if the defend- ant is serving an unusually long sentence and there is an interven- ing change in the law that creates a “gross disparity” between the defendant’s current sentence and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the sentence-reduction motion is filed. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6).

1 We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction

and review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of an eligible defend- ant’s sentence-reduction motion. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2021). We review for abuse of discretion a denial of a motion for reconsideration. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). USCA11 Case: 24-12161 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/24/2025 Page: 3 of 6

24-12161 Opinion of the Court 3

When he was sentenced in 2014, Taylor was designated as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) based on, among other convictions, his 1993 conviction of the Florida offense of attempted robbery with a firearm, which significantly enhanced his guideline range. A defendant is designated as a career offender and is thus subjected to an enhanced guideline range if (1) his instant offense of conviction is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense, and (2) he has at least two prior convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Taylor asserted that Florida attempted robbery is no longer a crime of violence that supports a career-offender designa- tion under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), so he would not be designated as a career offender if he was sentenced after that change in law. The district court denied Taylor’s motion because it deter- mined that, even if Florida attempted robbery is no longer a crime of violence, Taylor would still be designated as a career offender if he was sentenced after the asserted change in law because Taylor had a different prior conviction for a crime of violence, i.e., his 1993 conviction for the Florida offense of aggravated assault with a fire- arm. On appeal, Taylor challenges the district court’s determina- tion that his prior conviction for Florida aggravated assault was for a crime of violence.2 Taylor argues that his 1993 conviction for

2 Taylor does not challenge on appeal the district court’s conclusions that his

underlying federal conviction was for a controlled substance offense and that he had at least one prior conviction for a controlled substance offense. USCA11 Case: 24-12161 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/24/2025 Page: 4 of 6

4 Opinion of the Court 24-12161

Florida aggravated assault was not for a crime of violence because in 1993 a defendant could be convicted of aggravated assault in Florida even if he only had a reckless state of mind. See Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420, 429 (2021) (holding that the definition of “violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) does not include violent offenses with a mens rea of recklessness); see also United States v. Ochoa, 941 F.3d 1074, 1107 (11th Cir. 2019) (explaining that ACCA precedent regarding the definition of “vio- lent felony” is applicable for cases regarding U.S.S.G § 4B1.2(a)(1)’s definition of “crime of violence” because the two definitions are “virtually identical”). This argument is foreclosed by binding precedent. In Somers v. United States, we certified to the Florida Supreme Court the ques- tion of whether Florida’s aggravated-assault statute could be vio- lated by a reckless act for determining whether the Florida offense of aggravated assault was a violent felony under the ACCA. 66 F.4th 890, 893 (11th Cir. 2023). The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant could not be convicted of aggravated assault in Florida based on a reckless act, and we then held that Florida ag- gravated assault was a violent felony under the ACCA. Id. at 893-96; Somers v. United States, 355 So. 3d 887, 891-92 (Fla. 2022). We are bound by Somers to reject Taylor’s argument. See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Un- der [the prior panel precedent] rule, a prior panel’s holding is bind- ing on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or un- dermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by USCA11 Case: 24-12161 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/24/2025 Page: 5 of 6

24-12161 Opinion of the Court 5

this court sitting en banc.”). Somers controls here because the Flor- ida Supreme Court’s interpretation of the aggravated-assault stat- ute is “what that statute always meant,” including in 1993. See Som- ers, 66 F.4th at 896 (quotation marks omitted) (“[The defendant] cannot rely on earlier decisions of Florida’s intermediate courts of appeal to avoid [the Florida Supreme Court’s] clear holding.”); see also United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 942-43 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding, in considering whether a prior conviction was for a vio- lent felony under the ACCA, that the Florida Supreme Court’s later interpretation of the relevant statute controlled because that was “what that statute always meant”). Taylor’s reliance on United States v. Anderson, 99 F.4th 1106 (7th Cir. 2024), is inapt because that case is not binding on us, while Somers is. In sum, the district court was correct under Somers that Tay- lor’s 1993 aggravated-assault conviction was for a crime of vio- lence, so it did not err by concluding that Taylor would have been designated as a career offender if he was sentenced at the time he filed his sentence-reduction motion. For that reason, the district court did not err by determining that there were no extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a sentence reduction.3 Additionally, Taylor did not raise any arguments in his motion for reconsideration that established that he was entitled to his

3 We do not address Taylor’s arguments as to the district court’s alternative

rulings because the district court could deny Taylor’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion based on any one of the three rulings independently. See Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237-38. USCA11 Case: 24-12161 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/24/2025 Page: 6 of 6

6 Opinion of the Court 24-12161

requested relief, so the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying that motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Taylor’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion and motion for reconsid- eration. AFFIRMED.