Demetrius Lee Banks v. United States, 20-12012

In 1999 Demetrius Banks pled guilty to being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and the district court imposed an ACCA enhancement, producing a 188‑month sentence for that count (548 months total across counts).
Banks had seven 1981 Florida burglary convictions under a statute that covered entry into structures and their curtilage (a non‑generic burglary statute).
The sentencing record (PSR and transcript) does not state which ACCA clause (enumerated, elements, or residual) the sentencing court relied on for enhancement.
Banks filed a successive § 2255 motion premised on Johnson v. United States (invalidating the ACCA residual clause) after obtaining authorization from this court; he argued none of his 1981 convictions qualified except possibly under the now‑invalid residual clause.
The magistrate recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because Banks failed to show it was more likely than not the sentence was enhanced solely under the residual clause; the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed.
This court granted a certificate of appealability on whether it was more likely than not the sentencing court relied on the residual clause and affirmed the dismissal, holding Banks did not meet his burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Banks proved, by a preponderance, that the sentencing court relied solely on the ACCA residual clause	Banks: 1999 law and non‑generic Florida statute meant the court could only have relied on the residual clause to classify his 1981 burglaries as ACCA violent felonies	Government: PSR describing "burglarizing a residence" allowed the sentencing court to treat those convictions as generic burglary under the enumerated clause	Court: Banks failed to prove it was more likely than not the court relied solely on the residual clause; affirm dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
Standard of review for adoption of unobjected R&R	Banks: (did not object below)	Government: waiver of objections should trigger plain‑error review	Court: jurisdiction cannot be waived; reviews de novo but affirms because Banks fails on the merits regardless

Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (struck down ACCA residual clause)
Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (burden: must show more likely than not sentencing court relied solely on residual clause)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 ("generic burglary" concept and limits on using non‑generic statutes)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (what documents courts may consult to determine the nature of a prior conviction)
Williams v. United States, [citation="795 F. App'x 676"] (11th Cir. guidance that a PSR describing "burglarizing a residence" can support a finding of generic burglary)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (Johnson announced a new substantive rule retroactive on collateral review)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited)