Tomario Hicks was stopped by the Georgia State Patrol for a traffic violation, during which officers discovered a handgun, a digital scale, and methamphetamine in his vehicle. Hicks, who admitted he was a felon at the time, pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court enhanced his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because Hicks had four prior state convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Although the Presentence Investigation Report calculated an advisory sentencing range of 188 to 235 months, the district court varied downward and imposed a sentence of 180 months, which is the statutory minimum for an ACCA enhancement. Hicks appealed, challenging the ACCA classification, the guideline calculation, and the constitutionality of the firearm statute.
The court addressed Hicks's three main arguments. First, regarding the ACCA enhancement, the court applied the categorical approach, which looks only at the elements of the prior state statute rather than the specific facts of the prior crimes. Hicks argued that Georgia's definition of marijuana was broader than the federal definition because Georgia excluded only 'completely defoliated' mature stalks, whereas federal law excluded all 'mature stalks.' The court rejected this, explaining that the difference in language did not create a realistic probability that Georgia would prosecute conduct outside the federal definition. Both laws except the stalk from penalization, and neither excepts the leaves; therefore, a person with a mature stalk containing leaves would be prosecuted under both statutes. Consequently, the prior convictions qualified as 'serious drug offenses.' Second, the court addressed Hicks's Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hicks argued that recent Supreme Court decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi had abrogated the Eleventh Circuit's prior precedent in United States v. Rozier, which held that felon-in-possession bans are constitutional. The court clarified that Rahimi reaffirmed that prohibitions on firearm possession by felons are 'presumptively lawful.' Under the prior panel precedent rule, the court was bound by Rozier and its successor, United States v. Dubois II, and could not reconsider the constitutionality of the statute without clearer instruction from the Supreme Court or an en banc ruling.
The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's strict application of the categorical approach in ACCA cases, confirming that minor textual differences in state and federal marijuana definitions do not automatically disqualify prior convictions. It also solidifies the circuit's position that felon-in-possession bans remain constitutionally valid despite evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence. The case is remanded to the district court to enforce the 180-month sentence and five years of supervised release.