Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04617/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04617-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Katrina Renee Surratt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4603

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHANNON JAMES ELLIOTT,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-4617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KATRINA RENEE SURRATT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:16-cr-00013-WO-1; 1:16-cr-00013-

WO-2)

Submitted: November 25, 2019 Decided: February 21, 2020

USCA4 Appeal: 16-4617 Doc: 49 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North 

Carolina; Aaron B. Wellman, COALTER LAW, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellants. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, John M. Alsup, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 16-4617 Doc: 49 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM: 

Shannon James Elliott and Katrina Renee Surratt (“Appellants”) were charged as 

co-defendants in a six-count indictment. Counts 1, 3, and 5 each alleged Hobbs Act 

robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (2012), and Counts 2, 4, and 6 each 

alleged carrying and using, by brandishing, a firearm during and in relation to a crime of 

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). Appellants moved to 

dismiss Counts 2, 4, and 6 on the ground that Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a 

crime of violence under § 924(c). The district court denied the motion, and Appellants 

entered conditional guilty pleas, reserving their right to appeal the denial of the motion. 

The district court sentenced Elliott to a total of 156 months’ imprisonment and Surratt to a 

total of 137 months’ imprisonment. Appellants’ sole claim on appeal is that the district 

court erred in denying the motion to dismiss because Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of 

violence under § 924(c). We affirm. 

Section 924(c)(3) provides two definitions of the term “crime of violence”—the 

force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A) and the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B). In United States 

v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019), the Supreme Court held that § 924(c)(3)’s residual 

clause is unconstitutionally vague. Shortly after Davis, however, we held in United States 

v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019), petitions for cert. filed, Nos. 19-6423, 

19-6424 (U.S. Oct. 28, 2019), that “Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence 

under [§ 924(c)(3)’s] force clause.” Because Appellants’ contested convictions qualify as 

crimes of violence under the force clause, their only argument is foreclosed by Mathis. 

USCA4 Appeal: 16-4617 Doc: 49 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

We therefore affirm the judgments of the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 16-4617 Doc: 49 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 4 of 4