UNITED STATES v. JONES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-18No. No. 20-16063

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Jones's § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.

Leonard Jones, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Jones was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for discharging a firearm in connection with a crime of violence, specifically a Hobbs Act robbery. Jones argued that Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under the statute, but circuit precedent firmly established that it does.

Jones also raised for the first time on appeal a claim that his § 924 conviction was based on aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery and that this offense should not count as a crime of violence. The court assumed without deciding that Jones had not forfeited this argument by failing to raise it earlier, but rejected it on the merits. The court cited precedent holding that aiding and abetting armed robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c).

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)
Whether aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)
Whether a panel is bound by circuit precedent on these questions

Procedural posture

Jones appealed from the district court's denial of his § 2255 motion seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Federal prisoner Leonard Jones appeals from the district courts 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.

Jones challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Joness 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)). Jones 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).

For the first time on appeal, Jones claims that his § 924 conviction was predicated on aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery, and Jones argues that that offense does not qualify as a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c). Even assuming that Jones did not forfeit this argument by failing to raise it in the district court, see In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2014), the argument fails on the merits. See United States v. Henry, 984 F.3d 1343, 1356 (9th Cir. 2021) (aiding and abetting armed bank robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)).

AFFIRMED.