In In re Pollard, No. 19-12538 (July 31, 2019) (Ed
Carnes, Tjoflat, Rosenbaum) (per curiam), the Court denied a successive
application based on Davis because the 924(c) predicate was for armed
bank robbery, which, under Eleventh Circuit precedent, still qualified as a
crime of violence under the elements clause in 924(c)(3)(A). The Court made clear that where the predicate
offense qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements clause, the
applicant cannot show a reasonable likelihood that he will benefit from Davis,
and the application will be denied.
