
    Sherman Edward WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-15495 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (January 23, 2018)
    Nicole Kaplan, Stephanie A. Kearns, W. Matthew Dodge, Federal' Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Dashene Cooper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Andrew Horn, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Jill E. Steinberg, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sherman Williams appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his 192-month sentence for armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Williams argues that'his sentence was illegal because Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), invalidated the - “risk-of-force” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), and because his armed bank robbery conviction is not a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). Because we have previously concluded both that Johnson did not invalidate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) and that armed bank robbery is a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), we affirm.

When we granted Williams a certificate of appealability (COA), we had not yet resolved the question of whether Johnson, which invalidated the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), also invalidated the “risk-of-force” clause contained in § 924(c)(3)(B). But we have since determined that it did not, and we are bound by this conclusion. See Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). Thus, in light of Ovalles, Williams’s first claim is without merit.

We have also previously determined that a conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), “clearly meets the requirement for an underlying felony offense, as set out in § 924(c)(3)(A).” In re Hines, 824 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2016). Williams argues that In re Hines “has no precedential effect” here because it was an order on an application for a second or successive § 2255 motion, but we have made it clear that “our prior-panel-precedent rule applies with equal force as to prior panel decisions published in the context of applications to file second or successive petitions.” In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789, 794 (11th Cir. 2015). Thus, our holding in In re Hines is binding precedent, and it forecloses Williams’s second argument.

Johnson did not invalidate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), and armed bank robbery is a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). Ovalles, 861 F.3d at 1259; In re Hines, 824 F.3d at 1337. Therefore, we affirm the denial of Williams’s motion to vacate his sentence.

AFFIRMED.  