Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190417_0000992.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 03:57:58
Document Index: 375800051

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1951', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 2255', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 924']

Travanti Roberts, PETITIONER
Petitioner Travanti Roberts was convicted at trial of two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Counts 1 and 3); two counts of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (the Hobbs Act robberies), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Counts 2 and 4); and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (Count 5). The Court sentenced him to a total of 474 months incarceration, consisting of 90 months on Counts 1, 3, and 5; 84 months consecutive on Count 2; and 300 months consecutive on Count 4. ECF No. 133. In his § 2255 petition, he says that Hobbs Act robbery is not a valid § 924(c) predicate conviction and that he was therefore “convicted of two non-offenses over which this court did not have jurisdiction.”[1] ECF No. 230 at 1-2.
Because Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), Petitioner's petition for relief pursuant to § 2255, ECF No. 226, is DENIED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.[4]
[1] He filed his petition pro se, but an assistant federal public defender later noticed his appearance on Petitioner's behalf and filed a memorandum in support of the petition. ECF Nos. 226, 229, 230.
[3] As to § 924(c)'s residual clause, the Fourth Circuit recently concluded that it is unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229, 232 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc). However, Simms has no impact on this case because that decision only involved the residual clause, not the force clause.
[4] A response from the Government is not required because “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that [Petitioner] is entitled to no relief . . ...