United States v. St. Hubert

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences for two counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during, in relation to, and in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court held that defendant's guilty plea did not bar his challenge to the section 924(c) convictions; defendant's constitutional challenge to section 924(c)(3)(B) lacked merit because defendant did not deny that Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence if that risk-of-force or residual clause in section 924(c)(3)(B) was constitutional; defendant's challenge to his first section 924(c) conviction failed because this court has already held that Hobbs Act robbery independently qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; under the categorical approach, each of the means of committing Hobbs Act robbery qualified under the use-of-force clause in section 924(c)(3)(A); defendant's predicate offense of attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A)'s use-of-force clause; and no matter the outcome of 18 U.S.C. 16(b)'s residual clause in Sessions v. Dimaya, defendant's section 924(c) convictions and sentences must be affirmed under both clauses in section 924(c)(3)(A) and (B). View "United States v. St. Hubert" on Justia Law