Law360 (October 9, 2026, 7:09 PM EDT) -- The Eleventh Circuit has ruled that a man convicted of robbing two auto parts stores should be resentenced because changes in the federal sentencing guidelines retroactively updated language relating to the physical restraint of a victim.

The three-judge panel said on Thursday that Antonio Brown should be resentenced because a change in the federal sentencing guidelines meant that he is now eligible for a new sentence, and that he was incorrectly given a two-level enhancement on his sentence.

"Indeed, as already explained, under our precedent, a clarifying amendment applies retroactively precisely because it doesn't change a Guideline but rather explains what the Guideline meant all along," Circuit Judge Kevin C. Newsom said. "Accordingly, in light of the 2025 amendment, which we have held to be clarifying and thus retroactively applicable, the district court's imposition of the two-level enhancement wasn't proper at the time of sentencing, regardless of what our then-existing precedent said."

Brown and a codefendant entered two different auto parts stores in Tampa and brandished handguns at employees. Employees at the first store gave the men $300 from the cash register but could not open a safe when ordered by the pair, the opinion said.

The two then targeted another store using the same tactics of brandishing the firearm at employees and demanding they hand over cash. Cash registers at the second store had $1,140 that the two stole and then fled in a "distinctive" vehicle that was later identified by police on the evening of the robberies, the opinion said.

Police stopped Brown's car for an alleged traffic violation and after allegedly smelling marijuana, law enforcement searched the vehicle. Police found clothing and a mask that were used in the robberies, and $1,000 in cash in the car, the opinion said.

Brown was charged with five federal counts, including two counts of Hobbs Act Robbery, conspiracy and two additional counts of brandishing a firearm. Brown entered a plea agreement on everything except one of the two brandishing charges, which prosecutors later dropped as part of the deal, the opinion said.

As part of the agreement, the government promised to recommend a sentence within the federal sentencing guideline range. A presentence investigation report recommended a five-level sentence enhancement because Brown brandished a weapon during the robbery, the opinion said.

The report said that Brown should also be given a two-level enhancement because the crime involved the victim being "physically restrained." The PSR identified Brown's unscored criminal history as warranting an upward departure. The district court ultimately imposed an upward variance, the opinion said.

A federal court held two sentencing hearings and prosecutors acknowledged that the government was limited to requesting a sentence within the guideline range. The court ultimately sentenced Brown to a total of 17 years in prison, the opinion said.

While Brown's appeal was pending, the U.S. Sentencing Commission altered the federal guidelines about the physical restraint requirement in the enhancement language. The update removed the phrase "physical restraint" in favor of more descriptive language, the opinion said.

The commission updated the language to resolve a circuit split on the meaning of the language and when to apply it. Applying Eleventh Circuit precedent, the panel held that the amendment was clarifying rather than substantive and therefore applied retroactively, the opinion said.

The appeals panel held that even though the precedent had not changed when Brown was sentenced, the changes in the law warrant resentencing. The guideline's use of a so-called "clarifying amendment," to make the language clearer is retroactive because it does not change the actual enhancement itself, the opinion said.

The appeals panel ultimately upheld Brown's conviction but ordered that he be resentenced under the updated sentencing guideline enhancement language, the opinion said.

An attorney representing Brown and a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida did not respond to a request for comment.

Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan, Jill A. Pryor and Kevin Newsom sat for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The government is represented by Collette B. Cunningham of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida.

Brown is represented by Grady Charles Irvin Jr. of the Irving Law Firm and Thomas A. Burns of Burns PA.

The case is United States v. Antonio Brown, case number 23-13326 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

--Editing by Vaqas Asghar.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.