Opinion
No. 17-17240
01-26-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TED S. ESTEBAN, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00228-SOM-KSC 1:02-cr-00540-SOM-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ted S. Esteban appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
Esteban challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) for using a short-barreled shotgun during a crime of violence. Esteban's contention that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed. See United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2020) (reaffirming that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Esteban asserts that Dominguez was wrongly decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the decision. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is "clearly irreconcilable" with intervening higher authority).
We deny Esteban's request for initial hearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b), (c).
AFFIRMED.