[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13135

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 0:15-cv-62393-JIC; 0:14-cr-60174-JIC-2

SCHADRAC HOSSAIN, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 13, 2020)

Before WILSON, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

LAGOA, Circuit Judge: 

Case: 17-13135 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 1 of 5
2

Schadrac Hossain (“Hossain”) appeals the district court’s denial of his

amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and also moves for 

summary reversal.1

 For the reasons discussed below, we grant Hossain’s motion for 

summary reversal, vacate Hossain’s 18 U.S.C § 924(c) conviction (Count 5), and 

remand to the district court for resentencing.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 24, 2014, Hossain and his co-defendant, Michael Brown, were 

charged in a multiple-count indictment. Hossain pled guilty to Counts 1 and 5 in 

exchange for the government dismissing the remaining counts against him. Count 1 

charged both Hossain and Brown with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery 

under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Count 5 charged both Hossain and Brown with 

knowingly carrying and possessing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of 

violence (Count 1) and a drug trafficking crime (Counts 2 and 3) in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (2). The plea agreement entered into by Hossain

specified that the § 924(c) charge to which Hossain was pleading guilty was 

predicated solely on the crime of violence as outlined in Count 1, and this was 

reaffirmed during the plea colloquy when the district court adjudged Hossain “guilty 

1

 This Court in Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2019), granted Hossain’s 

co-defendant, Michael Brown, a summary reversal of his § 924(c) conviction based on identical 

facts and arguments as those raised by Hossain in this appeal.

Case: 17-13135 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 2 of 5
3

of Count 1, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery” and adjudged Hossain “guilty 

of Count 5, use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.”

Of significance to this appeal, Hossain filed an amended § 2255 motion to 

vacate, arguing that his § 924(c) conviction was invalid in light of Johnson v. United 

States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), because conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery no 

longer qualified as a crime of violence. The district court denied the § 2255 motion 

based on this Court’s precedent in Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 

2017), on reh’g en banc, 905 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir.), opinion reinstated in part, 905 

F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2018), abrogated by United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 

(2019). Hossain timely filed a notice of appeal, and on July 15, 2019, this Court 

granted Hossain a certificate of appealability as to whether his conviction for using 

a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of § 924(c) remained valid in light 

of Davis. This appeal ensued, and the government concedes that Hussain’s § 924(c)

conviction should be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for 

resentencing. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

When reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, “we review legal issues de 

novo and factual findings under a clear error standard.” United States v. Walker, 198 

F.3d 811, 813 (11th Cir. 1999).

Case: 17-13135 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 3 of 5
4

III. ANALYSIS

Under § 924(c)(3), a “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.

Subsection (A) is known as “the elements clause,” and subsection (B) is known as 

“the residual clause.” See In re Hammoud, 931 F.3d 1032, 1040 (11th Cir. 2019).

In Davis, the Supreme Court held that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause was 

void for vagueness like the residual clause at issue in Johnson. 139 S. Ct. at 2336.

Davis, however, did not address the definition of “crime of violence” found in § 

924(c)’s elements clause. Following Davis, this Court in Brown v. United States,

942 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2019), held that conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery

does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s elements clause. 2 Id.

at 1075–76.

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Davis and this Court’s ruling in 

Brown, summary reversal is appropriate as Count 1 for conspiracy to commit Hobbs 

Act robbery served as the sole predicate offense for Hossain’s § 924(c) conviction,

2

 The mandate in Brown issued on January 7, 2020, after briefing in this case had been 

completed.

Case: 17-13135 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 4 of 5
5

and conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery no longer qualifies as a crime of 

violence. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

(explaining that summary reversal is appropriate when “rights delayed are rights 

denied” or “one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be 

no substantial question as to the outcome of the case”).3

IV. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, we grant Hossain’s motion for summary reversal of the district 

court’s denial of his amended § 2255 motion, vacate Hossain’s § 924(c) conviction

(Count 5), and remand to the district court for resentencing.4

REVERSED AND REMANDED

3 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the 

Eleventh Circuit adopted all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981 as binding 

precedent.

4

 In his motion for summary reversal, Hossain states that he has completed his sentence, 

is currently in a halfway house and scheduled to be placed on supervised release. As such, the 

proceedings before the district court weigh heavily in favor of treating this matter with urgency.

Case: 17-13135 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 5 of 5