UNITED STATES v. LOTT (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-26No. No. 17-55187

Summary · law.co

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

Keith Lamar Lott, a federal prisoner, sought to overturn his conviction and sentence through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He was convicted of using and carrying a firearm while aiding and abetting others in committing a crime of violence under federal law. Lott argued that robbery under the Hobbs Act should not qualify as a crime of violence for purposes of the firearm enhancement statute.

The appellate court rejected Lott's argument as foreclosed by existing Ninth Circuit precedent. A prior decision in United States v. Dominguez had already established that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under the relevant statutory provision. Although Lott contended that Dominguez was incorrectly decided, a three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent directly conflicts with a ruling from a higher authority, which was not the case here.

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

Key issues

Whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)
Panel precedent and circuit court's duty to follow established appellate authority
Validity of firearm enhancement convictions based on crime-of-violence predicate offenses

Procedural posture

Lott appealed from the district court's denial of his § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence, and the appellate court reviewed the denial de novo.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM *

Federal prisoner Keith Lamar Lott 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.

Lott challenges his convictions and sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(1) for using and carrying a firearm and aiding and abetting the use and carry of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. Lotts 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)). Lott 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).

AFFIRMED.