NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

JOHN LANNY LYNCH,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-35794

D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00156-DWM

9:99-cr-00018-DWM-1

MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

JOSEPH BERNARD WRIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-35795

D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00085-DWM

9:11-cr-00017-DWM-1

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

MAR 15 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

JACOB KRAUS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-36003

D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00090-SPW

1:08-cr-00014-SPW-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

CHUOI SAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-36004

D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00089-SPW

1:05-cr-00052-SPW-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

YURI CHACHANKO,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-36007

D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00096-SPW

1:05-cr-00052-SPW-1

ROLANDO PEREZ, No. 18-35070

- 2 -
Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

D.C. Nos. 1:16-cv-00100-SPW

1:06-cr-00026-SPW-1

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

STEVEN ALEXANDER ACTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-35087

D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00077-DLC

9:12-cr-00017-DLC-1

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 9, 2021** 

Seattle, Washington

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

- 3 -
Before: McKEOWN and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,

*** District Judge.

Defendants-appellants appeal the denials of their motions under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct their 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions and

sentences. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de

novo the denial of a § 2255 motion, United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043,

1045 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

Defendants-appellants’ contention that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery

is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed by our

precedent. See Young v. United States, 22 F.4th 1115, 1122!23 (9th Cir. 2022)

(explaining that there is “no distinction between aiding-and-abetting liability and

liability as a principal under federal law[,]” and holding that “aiding and abetting a

crime of violence, such as armed bank robbery, is also a crime of violence”). Because

Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence, see United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d

1251, 1260!61 (9th Cir. 2020), and aiding and abetting a crime of violence is also a

crime of violence, see Young, 22 F.4th at 1122!23, we affirm the district courts’

denials of defendants-appellants’ § 2255 motions. 

AFFIRMED.

*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

- 4 -