Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-17-15464/USCOURTS-ca11-17-15464-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcos Henderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15464

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-00015-CDL-MSH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

MARCOS HENDERSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(January 7, 2020)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 17-15464 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 1 of 5
2

Marcos Henderson is a federal prisoner serving a total sentence of 152-

months’ imprisonment. In 2017, Henderson pleaded guilty to four counts: two 

counts of Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Counts 1 and 2),

one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence

(specifically, the Hobbs Act robbery underlying the second count) in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 3), and one count of possession of a firearm by 

a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (Count 4). 

Henderson now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the

§ 924(c) count—possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

1

 

Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. 

Ct. 2319 (2019), Henderson argues that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of 

violence under § 924(c) and that the district court therefore abused its discretion 

when it denied his motion to dismiss. 

We affirm. As this Circuit has previously recognized, Henderson’s 

predicate offense of Hobbes Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the 

use-of-force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A). Thus, although the Davis Court invalidated

the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B), Henderson’s conviction remains valid. 

1 In his plea agreement, Henderson retained the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

motion to dismiss. 

USCA11 Case: 17-15464 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 2 of 5
3

I

We review the denial of a motion to dismiss a charge in an indictment for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Pendergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1204 (11th Cir. 

2002) (citation omitted). A district court abuses its discretion when it makes an 

error of law. United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 874 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations 

omitted). Whether an offense qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c) is a 

question of law. United States v. McGuire, 706 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir. 2013), 

overruled in part on other grounds by Ovalles v. United States, 905 F.3d 1231, 

1234 (11th Cir. 2018) (en banc), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2716 (2019), and 

abrogated by Davis, 139 S. Ct. at 2336.

Section 924(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code criminalizes the use or 

carrying of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or drug-trafficking 

crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). “Crime of violence” is defined as a felony offense that 

either: 

(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of 

physical force against the person or property of another, or 

(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force 

against the person or property of another may be used in the course of 

committing the offense. 

Id. § 924(c)(3).

Subsection (A) is known as the “use-of-force” clause while subsection (B) is 

known as the “residual” clause. In re Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir. 2016). 

USCA11 Case: 17-15464 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 3 of 5
4

In Davis, the Supreme Court extended its holdings in Johnson v United States, 135 

S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), to § 924(c) 

and held that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause, like the residual clauses in the 

Armed Career Criminal Act and 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), is unconstitutionally vague. 

Davis, 139 S. Ct. at 2325–27, 2336.

II

Henderson argues that his § 924(c) conviction is invalid because the district 

court held that his § 924(c) predicate offense—the Hobbs Act robbery in Count 

2—qualified as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(B)’s now-void residual 

clause. The problem with this argument is that, although the district court did hold 

that Hobbs Act robbery is a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(B)’s now-void 

residual clause, it alternatively held that Hobbs Act robbery is a “crime of 

violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s use-of-force clause. See Dist. Ct. Order Denying

Mot. to Dismiss at 8. And Davis left § 924(c)(3)(A)’s use-of-force clause 

untouched. See 139 S. Ct. at 2336.

As he must, therefore, Henderson also attempts to argue that the district 

court erred when it concluded that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a “crime of 

violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s use-of-force clause. The problem here is that 

binding circuit precedent is to the contrary. We have held that a “conviction for 

Hobbs Act robbery . . . clearly qualifies as a ‘crime of violence’ under the use-ofUSCA11 Case: 17-15464 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 4 of 5
5

force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A).” In re Fleur, 824 F.3d at 1340; see also In re 

Cannon, 931 F.3d 1236, 1242 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding, post-Davis, that Hobbs

Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the use-of-force clause in 

§ 924(c)(3)(A)); United States v. St. Hubert, 909 F.3d 335, 349 (11th Cir. 2018)

(“Hobbs Act robbery is categorically a crime of violence under the use-of-force 

clause in § 924(c)(3)(A).”), petition for cert. filed, No. 19-5267 (2019). Thus, 

despite Davis’s holding that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally 

vague, Henderson’s § 924(c) conviction remains valid.

III

Based on the foregoing, we hold that the district court’s decision denying 

Henderson’s motion to dismiss is AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 17-15464 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 5 of 5