Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Carlos TORRES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-15820

Decided: January 26, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. J. Ryan Moore, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ - Federal Public Defender's Office, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Denise Ann Faulk, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, USTU- Office of the US Attorney, USTU- Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee


Federal prisoner Carlos Torres 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.

Torres challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. Torres'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)). Torres 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). The district court therefore properly denied Torres's § 2255 motion. See Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (court “may affirm on any ground supported by the record, even if it differs from the rationale used by the district court”).


Copied to clipboard