United States v. Joshua James York

── United States v. Joshua James York ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12958 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12958 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSHUA JAMES YORK, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:24-cr-00042-MTT-CHW-1 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Joshua York appeals his 270-month sentence of imprison- ment for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred in finding that his Georgia USCA11 Case: 25-12958 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12958 methamphetamine convictions were “controlled substance of- fenses” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). The government moves for summary affirmance, arguing that York’s appeal is foreclosed by our precedent in United States v. Kennedy, 146 F.4th 1054, 1071–72 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 393 (2025). After careful review, we grant the government’s motion and summarily affirm. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, as in “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap- peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 An appeal is frivolous if it is “without argua- ble merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). We review a district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269, 1272 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc). The prior panel prec- edent rule requires us to follow the precedent of the first panel to address the relevant issue, unless the first panel’s holding is over- ruled either by us sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court, even 1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981. USCA11 Case: 25-12958 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-12958 Opinion of the Court 3 when a later panel is convinced the earlier panel is wrong. United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th Cir. 2019). A defendant is a career offender if (1) he was at least eighteen years old at the time he committed the instant offense of convic- tion; (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) he has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) (2024). The