MURRAY v. UNITED STATES (2020)

Renard Murray appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, for aiding and abetting another to possess a firearm during a bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court granted a certificate of appealability for whether Murray’s conviction based on a guilty plea is constitutional in the light of the decisions in United States v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019), and Johnson v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Murray contends that the predicate offense to which he pleaded guilty, aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery, is not a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3). Our precedents hold otherwise. We affirm.

In an appeal of a denial of a motion to vacate, we review questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error. Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). We may affirm for any reason supported by the record. Castillo v. United States, 816 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2016).

As Murray concedes, our precedents control this appeal. Although in Davis the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of section 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague, 139 S. Ct. at 2323, 2336, our precedents establish that aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery is categorically a crime of violence under the elements clause of section 924(c)(3)(A). In re Sams, 830 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2016); In re Colon, 826 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2016). So we affirm the denial of Murray’s motion to vacate.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM: