Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability by relying on Ovalles v. United States

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This case presents important issues concerning the proper application of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which prohibits the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. Specifically, first, whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying Mr. Bannister a certificate of appealability by relying on its holding in Ovalles v. United States, 861 F. 3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2016) (Ovalles I) (Johnson does not apply to the “force clause” of § 924(c)). Ovalles has been seriously called into question by this Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, ___ U.S. __, 188 S.Ct. 1204 (2018) and is contrary to this Court’s earlier decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __, 1385 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). Reasonable jurists would find the court’s reliance on Ovalles debatable in light of Dimaya. Second, whether Bannister’s § 924(c) predicate convictions for conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery qualify as crimes of violence. i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no