Summary
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendants’ convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for brandishing firearms in relation to Hobbs Act robbery. The court held that completed Hobbs Act robbery remains a qualifying crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause after United States v. Taylor. The court concluded that binding Eleventh Circuit precedent foreclosed the appellants’ arguments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the defendants' § 924(c) charges.
- Whether completed Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)'s elements clause after United States v. Taylor.
- Whether the defendants' arguments were foreclosed by binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, including United States v. Wiley and United States v. Solomon.
Holdings
- The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction because an indictment charging violations of a valid federal statute alleges offenses against the laws of the United States and thereby invokes federal-question criminal jurisdiction.
- Completed Hobbs Act robbery remains a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)'s elements clause and is therefore a valid predicate offense for § 924(c) convictions.
Key quotations
“Here, the appellants’ § 924(c) arguments are foreclosed by our binding precent, including Solomon.” (5)
“The district court did not err in determining that completed Hobbs Act robbery remains a crime of violence after Taylor and, therefore, a valid predicate offense for the appellants’ § 924(c) convictions.” (5)
Factual background
Bouie and Diggs were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for brandishing firearms in relation to crimes of violence. The predicate offenses were completed Hobbs Act robberies. Their appeals challenged the continued classification of completed Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence after the Supreme Court's decision in Taylor concerning attempted Hobbs Act robbery.
Procedural history
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered convictions against Bouie and Diggs on § 924(c) charges. On appeal, both defendants argued that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that completed Hobbs Act robbery no longer qualified as a crime-of-violence predicate after United States v. Taylor. The Eleventh Circuit rejected those arguments and affirmed.