Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 4:20-CR-00624-003
07-11-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DONNIE JONES
ORDER
Keith P. Ellison, United States District Judge
Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) charge of brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. (Doc. 106.) A defendant may be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) when he uses or carries a firearm during or in relation to a crime of violence.
§ 924(c) defines “crime of violence” in two subparts: the elements clause, § 924(c)(3)(A) (a felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another”), and the residual clause, § 924(c)(3)(B) (a felony “that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense”). However, in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), the Court found the residual clause unconstitutionally vague.
Defendant's § 924(c) charge arises in relation to his charge for aiding and abetting a robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (also “Hobbs Act”). The Fifth Circuit has long held that completed Hobbs Act robberies constitute crimes of violence under § 924(c). See, e.g., United States v. Hill, 63 F.4th 335 (5th Cir. 2023).
However, according to Defendant, a series of recent Supreme Court decisions necessitate a reversal of this well-established precedent. First, in United States v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015, 2025 (2022), the Supreme Court held that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery cannot be a crime of violence under the elements clause § 924(c) because “[w]hatever one might say about completed Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not require proof of any of the elements § 924(c)(3)(A) demands.” Second, Defendant contends (and the Government contests) that Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) suggests that the Hobbs Act is not divisible between attempted and completed robberies. According to Defendant, if attempted robbery is not a crime of violence and the crime of attempt is not divisible from the completed crime, then aiding and abetting robbery under § 1951 cannot be a crime of violence. (Doc. 106 at 5-6.) The Government disagrees based on Fifth Circuit precedent, the holdings of sister circuits, and its own interpretation of the underlying statutes.
Under United States v. Hill, 63 F.4th 335 (5th Cir. 2023), decided after Taylor, this Court must conclude that aiding and abetting robbery under the Hobbs Act is a crime of violence:
Our precedents establish that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause. While we have not addressed whether aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence, our sister circuits have uniformly held that, because there is not distinction between those convicted of aiding and abetting and those convicted as a principal under federal law, aiding and abetting a crime of violence qualifies as a crime of violence as well.Id. at 363 (internal citation omitted).
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.