UNITED STATES v. DAVIS (2020)

Cortese Tramand Davis pled guilty to two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2018), and two counts of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2018). On appeal, Davis argues that Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c). Finding no error, we affirm.

“We review de novo the question whether an offense qualifies as a crime of violence.” United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 263 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 639, 205 L.Ed.2d 401 (2019), and cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 640, 205 L.Ed.2d 401 (2019). A crime of violence for § 924(c) purposes is defined as:

an offense that is a felony and (A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another [ (the “force clause”) ], or (B) that[,] by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense [ (the “residual clause”) ].

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).

We previously declared that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229, 237 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 304, 205 L.Ed.2d 196 (2019); accord United States v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019). However, we have held that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause. Mathis, 932 F.3d at 266. Accordingly, the district court did not err in rejecting Davis’ arguments to the contrary.^*

Thus, 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Davis also filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief to raise a claim under § 403 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We denied his motion and instead held this case in abeyance for United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 170–74 (4th Cir. 2020), in which we held that the First Step Act does not apply to cases that were pending on appeal when Congress passed the First Step Act.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.