N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOHN LANNY LYNC H,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-35794

D.C . Nos. 9:16-c v-00156-DW M 9:99-c r-00018-DW M -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOSEPH B ER

NARD W R IGHT, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-35795

D.C . Nos. 9:16-c v-00085-DW M 9:11-c r-00017-DW M -1

Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dona ld W . M olloy , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding 

# FIL ED
MAR 15 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is n o t ap p r o p r ia te for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JAC OB KR

AUS, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-36003

D.C . Nos. 1:16-c v-00090-SPW

1:08-c r-00014-SPW -3

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C HUOI SAM ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-36004

D.C . Nos. 1:16-c v-00089-SPW

1:05-c r-00052-SPW -2

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. YUR I C HAC HANKO,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-36007

D.C . Nos. 1:16-c v-00096-SPW

1:05-c r-00052-SPW -1

R OLANDO PER

EZ, No. 18-35070

- 2 -Pe t i tione r-Appe lla nt,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . D.C . Nos. 1:16-c v-00100-SPW 1:06-c r-00026-SPW -1

Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W a tte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. STEVEN ALEXANDER AC TON, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-35087

D.C . Nos. 9:16-c v-00077-DLC

9:12-c r-00017-DLC -1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2021 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington

* * The p an el u n an im o u sly c onc lude s the se c a se s are suita b le for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). - 3 -B e fore : M c KEOW N and B ADE, C i rc uit J

udge s, and FITZW ATER , *** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda nts-a ppe lla nts a ppe a l the de nia l s of the ir m otions unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 2255 to v acat e, s e t a s ide , or c o rre c t the ir 18 U.S.C
. § 924(c ) c o nvic tions a n d
se nte nc e s. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U
. S
. C. §§ 1291 and 2 253. W e re vie w de
novo the d e nia l o f a § 2255 m otion, Unite d State s v . Aguirre -Ganc e da , 5 92 F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th C ir. 2010), a

nd we a ffirm
. De fe nda nts-a ppe lla nts’ c onte ntion that a iding and a be tting Hobbs Ac t robbe ry is not a c rim e of v i o le nc e unde r 18 U .S.C
. § 924(c )(3)(A) is fore c l ose d by our pre c e de nt. Se e Young v . U nite d State

s , 22 F.4th 1115, 11 2 2

! 2 3 (9th C ir. 2022) (e xpla ining that the re is “ n o d i stinc tion be t we e n a iding-a

nd-a be tting l ia

bility a n d l ia bility a s a p rinc ipa l unde r fe de ra l la w[,] ” a nd holding that “ a iding and ab et t i n g a
c rim e of viole nc e , suc h a s a rm e d ba nk robbe ry , is a lso a c rim e of viole nc e ” ). B e c a use Hobbs Ac t robbe ry

is a c rim e of viole nc e , se e U

nite d State

s v . Domingue

z , 954 F.3d 1251, 1 260

! 61 (9th C ir. 2020), a nd a iding and a

be tting a c rim e o f v iole nc e is a lso a
c rim e o f viole nc e , se e Y

o u n g , 22 F.4th a t 1122

! 23, we a ffirm the distric t c ourts’ de nia ls of de fe nda

nts-a ppe l la nts’ § 2255 m otions. AFFIRM E D
.

* ** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa te r, Unite d State s D istric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion. - 4 -