UNITED STATES v. TORRENCE (2019)

Antonio Denard Torrence appeals his conviction for brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). He contends that his § 924(c) conviction is invalid because the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague and Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A). Although the Supreme Court has invalidated the residual clause, United States v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019), this Court has held that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause, United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019). Torrence’s § 924(c) conviction is therefore valid, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.