UNITED STATES v. STANKUS III (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-26No. No. 17-16630

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's order denying Stankus's motion to vacate, holding that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the firearm statute and that the panel was bound by prior circuit precedent on this issue.

Adolph Vytautas Stankus III appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for using a firearm during a crime of violence under federal law. Stankus challenged whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of the firearm statute. The appellate court found this argument foreclosed by prior circuit precedent establishing that Hobbs Act robbery does constitute a crime of violence under the relevant statutory elements test. Although Stankus contended the prior decision was incorrect, the three-judge panel explained it was bound by existing circuit precedent absent clear irreconcilability with higher authority.

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)
Binding effect of circuit precedent on three-judge panels
Validity of firearm-during-crime-of-violence conviction

Procedural posture

Stankus appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Adolph Vytautas Stankus III, appeals from the district courts order 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.

Stankus challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for using a firearm during a crime of violence. Stankuss 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)). Stankus 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.