Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-17-04035/USCOURTS-ca4-17-04035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kentrell Donta Brayboy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENTRELL DONTA BRAYBOY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00262-F-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: January 9, 2020

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dhamian Blue, BLUE LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., 

United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 17-4035 Doc: 43 Filed: 01/09/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Kentrell Donta Brayboy appeals following his guilty plea to three counts of aiding 

and abetting Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951 (2018); discharging 

a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (aiding and abetting Hobbs Act Robbery), 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (2018); and two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. On appeal, Brayboy contends that aiding and abetting 

Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under § 924(c). We affirm.

We normally “review de novo the question whether an offense qualifies as a crime 

of violence.” United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 263 (4th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, No. 

19-6423, 2019 WL 6689801 (U.S. Dec. 9, 2019), and cert. denied, No. 19-6424, 2019 WL 

6689802 (U.S. Dec. 9, 2019). Brayboy, however, never argued in the district court that 

aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence. “To 

preserve an argument on appeal, the defendant must object on the same basis below as he 

contends is error on appeal.” United States v. Westbrooks, 780 F.3d 593, 595 (4th Cir. 

2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we review Brayboy’s argument for 

plain error. To prevail under the plain error standard, Brayboy “must show (1) an error 

that (2) was clear or obvious, (3) affects substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Walker, 

934 F.3d 375, 378 (4th Cir. 2019) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

A crime of violence for § 924(c) purposes is defined as:

an offense that is a felony and . . . (A) has an element the use, attempted use, 

or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another 

[(the “force clause”)], or (B) that[,] by its nature, involves a substantial risk 

USCA4 Appeal: 17-4035 Doc: 43 Filed: 01/09/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in 

the course of committing the offense [(the “residual clause”)].

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). We have held that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. 

United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229, 237 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 304 

(2019); accord United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019). We have also held 

that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the force clause. Mathis, 

932 F.3d at 266. While we did not address aiding and abetting liability in Mathis, every 

circuit to have considered Brayboy’s argument has rejected it. See United States v. 

McKelvey, 773 F. App’x 74, 75 (3d Cir. 2019); United States v. Grissom, 760 F. App’x 

448, 454 (7th Cir. 2019); United States v. Richardson, 906 F.3d 417, 426 (6th Cir. 2018), 

vacated on other grounds, 139 S. Ct. 2713 (2019); United States v. García-Ortiz, 904 F.3d 

102, 104-05, 109 (1st Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 1208 (2019); United States v. 

Deiter, 890 F.3d 1203, 1215-16 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 647 (2018);In re Colon, 

826 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, Brayboy cannot demonstrate plain 

error. See United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (“At a minimum, 

courts of appeals cannot correct an error pursuant to plain error review unless the error is 

clear under current law.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)); United States 

v. Rouse, 362 F.3d 256, 263 (4th Cir. 2004) (recognizing, in absence of Supreme Court or 

Fourth Circuit authority, “decisions by other circuit courts of appeals are pertinent to the 

question of whether an error is plain” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

USCA4 Appeal: 17-4035 Doc: 43 Filed: 01/09/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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: 17-4035 Doc: 43 Filed: 01/09/2020 Pg: 4 of 4