UNITED STATES v. ESPINOZA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-26No. No. 17-16666

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Espinoza's § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence, holding that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) pursuant to binding circuit precedent.

Paul Xavier Espinoza, a federal prisoner, sought to vacate his conviction and sentence for a firearm offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), which requires that the firearm be used during and in relation to a crime of violence. Espinoza argued that Hobbs Act robbery should not qualify as a crime of violence for purposes of the statute. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that prior circuit precedent has already established that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under the relevant statutory provision. Although Espinoza contended the prior precedent was incorrect, the panel explained it was bound by existing circuit decisions unless they were demonstrably inconsistent 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)
Whether a three-judge panel is bound by prior circuit precedent
Collateral review of firearm offense conviction under § 2255

Procedural posture

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

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Paul Xavier Espinoza 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.

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