UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4206

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT WILLIAM SYKES, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District 

Judge. (1:15-cr-00458-MJG-1)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, OFFICE OF 

THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. 

Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, David Metcalf, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Robert William Sykes, Jr. pleaded guilty to two counts of 

interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1951(a) (2012) (Hobbs Act). The district court sentenced 

Sykes to 72 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Finding 

no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Sykes first argues that the district court erred 

in declining to reduce his offense level for the second count by 

three levels under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2X1.1(b)(1) (2016). In reviewing the district court’s 

calculations under the Guidelines, “we review the district 

court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for 

clear error.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th 

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 

2X1.1(b)(1) of the Guidelines provides:

If an attempt, decrease by [three] levels, unless the 

defendant completed all the acts the defendant 

believed necessary for successful completion of the 

substantive offense or the circumstances demonstrate 

that the defendant was about to complete all such acts 

but for apprehension or interruption by some similar 

event beyond the defendant’s control.

“The commentary to § 2X1.1 explicitly states that the reduction 

is intended for cases in which the defendant is arrested well 

before he has completed the acts necessary to commit the 

offense.” United States v. Shakur, 7 F. App’x 289, 290 (4th 

Cir. 2001) (No. 00-4755). 
3

Section 1951(a) prohibits obstructing, delaying, or 

affecting, in any way, the movement of any article or commodity 

in commerce by robbery or extortion, attempt or conspiracy to 

commit robbery or extortion, or threats of physical violence. 

18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). “A Hobbs Act crime, then, has two 

elements: (1) robbery or extortion, and (2) interference with 

commerce.” United States v. Taylor, 754 F.3d 217, 222 (4th Cir. 

2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The Hobbs Act 

defines robbery as the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal 

property from the person by means of actual or threatened force, 

or violence, or fear of injury, to his person or property at the 

time of the taking or obtaining.” United States v. Strayhorn, 

743 F.3d 917, 922 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and 

alterations omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record 

and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the 

district court did not err in calculating the offense level 

under the Guidelines. 

Sykes also argues that the court erred in denying his 

motion for a downward departure under USSG § 4A1.3(b) because 

his criminal history category overrepresented the seriousness of 

his criminal history. “We are unable, however, to review a 

sentencing court’s decision not to depart unless the court 

mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to do so.” 

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). 
4

Here, it is clear that the district court did not misapprehend 

its authority to grant such a departure. Therefore, Sykes 

“cannot contest on appeal the court’s failure to depart 

downward.” Id. at 306.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED