Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ted S. ESTEBAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-17240

Decided: January 26, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Edric Ming-Kai Ching, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Edric Ming-Kai Ching, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Marshall H. Silverberg, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ - Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee Salina M. Kanai, Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant


Ted S. Esteban appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.

Esteban challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) for using a short-barreled shotgun during a crime of violence. Esteban's contention that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed. See United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2020) (reaffirming that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Esteban asserts that Dominguez was wrongly decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the decision. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).

We deny Esteban's request for initial hearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(b), (c).


Copied to clipboard