[ DO NOT PUBLISH ]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 13135 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s
. 0:15

- cv
- 62393

- JIC ; 0:14

- cr
- 6 0174

- 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, C ircuit J udge :

Case: 17-13135 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 1 of 52 Schadrac Hossain (“Hossain”) appeals the district court’s d enial 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, w e 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 p ossessing 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 53 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 C ourt’s precedent in Ovalles v. United States , 861 F. 3d 1257 (11 th Cir. 2017), on reh’g en banc , 905 F.3d 1231 (11 th Cir.), opinion reinstated in part , 905 F.3d 1300 (1 1th 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) remain ed valid in light
of Davis . This appeal ensued , and the government c oncedes that Hussain’s § 924(c)
conviction should be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing.
II. S TANDARD OF R EVIEW 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 54 III. A NALYSIS
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 c ourse of committing the offense. S ubsection (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 w as 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. U nited 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 1 075

– 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 55 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, 116 2 (5th Cir. 196 9 ) (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, 198 1 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