Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 20–1459.  Argued December 7, 2021—Decided June 21, 2022 

For his participation in an unsuccessful robbery during which his accom-
plice shot a man, respondent Justin Taylor faced charges of violating 
the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. §1951(a), and of committing a “crime of vio-
lence” under §924(c).  The Hobbs Act makes it a federal crime to com-
mit, attempt to commit, or conspire to commit a robbery with an inter-
state  component.    §1951(a).    Section 924(c)  authorizes  enhanced 
punishments for those who use a firearm in connection with a “crime 
of violence” as defined in either §924(c)(3)(A)—known as the elements
clause—or  §924(c)(3)(B)—known  as  the  residual  clause.    Before  the 
District Court, the government argued that Taylor’s Hobbs Act offense 
qualified  as  a  “crime  of  violence”  under  §924(c).    Taylor  ultimately
pleaded guilty to one count each of violating the Hobbs Act and §924(c). 
The District Court sentenced Taylor to 30 years in federal prison—a 
decade more than the maximum sentence for his Hobbs Act conviction 
alone.  Taylor  later  filed  a  federal  habeas  petition  focused  on  his
§924(c) conviction, which was predicated on his admission that he had
committed  both  conspiracy  to  commit  Hobbs  Act  robbery  and  at-
tempted Hobbs Act robbery.  Taylor argued neither Hobbes Act offense 
qualified as a “crime of violence” for purposes of §924(c) after United 
States  v.  Davis,  588  U. S.  ___. 
In  Davis,  this  Court  held  that 
§924(c)(3)(B)’s  residual  clause  was  unconstitutionally  vague.  Id.,  at 
___–___.  In  his  habeas  proceeding,  Taylor  asked  the  court  to  apply 
Davis  retroactively  and  vacate  his  §924(c)  conviction  and  sentence. 
The government maintained that Taylor’s §924(c) conviction and sen-
tence remained sound because his crime of attempted Hobbs Act rob-
bery qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements clause.  The 
Fourth Circuit held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify
as a crime of violence under §924(c)(3)(A).  The Fourth Circuit vacated