United States of America v. Justin Eugene Taylor

Alexandria, Virginia criminal defense lawyers represented the Defendant charged with three counts

of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).



For his participation in an unsuccessful robbery during which his accomplice shot a man, respondent Justin Taylor faced charges of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and of committing a "crime of violence" under § 924(c). The Hobbs Act makes it a federal crime to commit, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit a robbery with an interstate component. § 1951(a). Section 924(c) authorizes enhanced punishments for those who use a firearm in connection with a "crime of violence" as defined in either § 924(c)(3)(A)—known as the elements clause—or § 924(c)(3)(B)—known as the residual clause. Before the District Court, the government argued that Taylor's Hobbs Act offense qualified as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c). Taylor ultimately pleaded guilty to one count each of violating the Hobbs Act and § 924(c). The District Court sentenced Taylor to 30 years in federal prison—a decade more than the maximum sentence for his Hobbs Act conviction alone. Taylor later filed a federal habeas petition focused on his § 924(c) conviction, which was predicated on his admission that he had committed both conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted Hobbs Act robbery. Taylor argued neither Hobbes Act offense qualified as a "crime of violence" for purposes of § 924(c) after United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757. In Davis, this Court held that § 924(c)(3)(B)'s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. Id., at ___ - ___, 139 S.Ct., at ___ - ___. In his habeas proceeding,

2017



*2017 Taylor asked the court to apply Davis retroactively and vacate his § 924(c) conviction and sentence. The government maintained that Taylor's § 924(c) conviction and sentence remained sound because his crime of attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements clause. The Fourth Circuit held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). The Fourth Circuit vacated Taylor's § 924(c) conviction and remanded the case for resentencing. In reaching its judgment, the Fourth Circuit noted that other courts have held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause.

Attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force. Pp. 2019-2025. United States Supreme Court, 142 S.Ct. 2015, 596 U.S. 845.