UNITED STATES v. ALLEN (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Al Christopher Braxton ALLEN, aka Al Braxton Allen, aka Christopher Braxton Allen, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10378

Decided: October 30, 2020

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE - Office of the US Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee Justin James Bustos, Esquire, Attorney, Dickinson Wright, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

MEMORANDUM **

Al Christopher Braxton Allen appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 102-month sentence for using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). We dismiss.

Allen contends that his conviction and sentence are illegal because Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). The government argues that this appeal should be dismissed based on the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement. We review de novo both the enforceability of an appeal waiver, see United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir. 2009), and whether a conviction is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3), see United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 2020).

Contrary to Allen's contention, Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements clause in § 924(c)(3)(A). See Dominguez, 954 F.3d at 1260-61. Accordingly, Allen's conviction and sentence are not illegal, and we dismiss pursuant to the valid appeal waiver. See Watson, 582 F.3d at 988.

DISMISSED.