SMITH v. << (2020)

Ryan Shevin Smith appeals from his convictions and the 141-month sentence imposed after he was convicted of one count each of conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery and interfering with interstate commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (“the firearms charge”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that the district court erred when it denied Smith's motion to dismiss the firearms charge because Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of § 1951(a), is no longer a “crime of violence” after Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 597, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) (holding that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b), is unconstitutionally vague). Smith was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government has not filed a responsive brief. After reviewing the district court record, we affirm.

Section 924(c)(3) provides two definitions of the term “crime of violence”—the force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A) and the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B). Although the Supreme Court has concluded that the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague, United States v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019), the force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A) remains intact. Furthermore, this court has confirmed that “Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under the force clause of Section 924(c).” United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019). Counsel's argument is thus foreclosed by Mathis.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm Smith's convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Smith. 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.