Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a “crime of violence” under
§924(c).

The District Court sentenced Taylor to 360 months’ im-
prisonment—a 240-month sentence for the conspiracy and 
a  120-month  consecutive  sentence  for  the  §924(c)  convic-
tion.  Taylor appealed, but in 2011 the Court of Appeals dis-
missed the appeal because Taylor had waived his appellate
rights in his plea agreement.  Order in United States v. Tay-
lor, No. 09–4468, ECF Doc. 54 (CA4, Jan. 7, 2011).  In 2015, 
he  then  unsuccessfully  sought  postconviction  relief  under 
28  U. S. C.  §2255.  United  States  v.  Taylor,  2015  WL 
4095845, *1 (ED Va., July 7, 2015). 

Decided around the time of his failed §2255 motion, one 
of this Court’s cases appeared to give Taylor another chance
to  challenge  his  conviction.    In  Johnson  v.  United  States, 
576 U. S. 591 (2015), the Court struck down the similarly 
worded residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act 
(ACCA), as unconstitutionally vague.  The following year,
in Welch v. United States, 578 U. S. 120 (2016), the Court 
held  that  Johnson  applies  retroactively  on  collateral  re-
view.  Citing those two decisions, Taylor moved for permis-
sion  to  file  a  second-or-successive  §2255  petition.    He  ar-
gued  that  §924(c)’s  residual  clause  paralleled  ACCA’s
residual clause and therefore was unconstitutionally vague.
979 F. 3d, at 206.  He further argued that attempted Hobbs
Act  robbery  was  not  a  “crime  of  violence”  under  §924(c)’s
elements clause because it lacked “as an element the use, 
attempted  use,  or  threatened  use  of  physical  force.” 
§924(c)(3)(A).

The Court of Appeals granted the motion to file a succes-
sive habeas petition and, in 2020, vacated Taylor’s §924(c) 
conviction.  It  did  so  because,  as  the  Court  explains,  our 
precedents  require  that  courts  apply  a  “categorical  ap-
proach” when interpreting the elements clause.  Ante, at 11. 
Under that approach, a criminal defendant who commits a