UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-26No. No. 17-17240

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment denying Esteban's § 2255 motion to vacate, holding that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) and that the appellate panel was bound by controlling circuit precedent on this issue.

Ted Esteban appealed the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Esteban was convicted of using a short-barreled shotgun during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i), with the underlying crime being Hobbs Act robbery. On appeal, Esteban challenged whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of the federal firearms statute.

The appellate court rejected Esteban's argument, finding that prior circuit precedent had already established that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under the relevant statute. Although Esteban contended that the prior decision was incorrect, the court explained that a three-judge panel is bound by existing circuit precedent unless that precedent is clearly incompatible with intervening higher authority—a condition not present here. The court also denied Esteban's request for the case to be reheard before the full court.

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 a three-judge panel is bound by prior circuit precedent when the panel believes the precedent is incorrectly decided
Application of the elements clause in the federal firearms statute

Procedural posture

Esteban appealed the district court's denial of his § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for using a short-barreled shotgun during a crime of violence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Ted S. Esteban 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.

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. Estebans 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 Estebans request for initial hearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b), (c).

AFFIRMED.