Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190912_0002120.ENC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-10 08:36:36
Document Index: 422033531

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

JULIUS DESHAWN HOBBS, Petitioner,
MALCOLM H. HOWARD SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the court on petitioner's motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, [DE #107], and motion for extension of time to file supplemental briefing, [DE #138].
On August 13, 2012, pursuant to a signed Memorandum of Plea Agreement, petitioner pled guilty to robbery of a business engaged in interstate commerce, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2 (Counts Nine, Eleven, and Thirteen) and use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2 (Count Ten). Petitioner was sentenced by this court to a total term of imprisonment of 132 months on December 12, 2012. Petitioner did not appeal.
On June 6, 2016, petitioner filed the instant motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, [DE #107], arguing that Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, no longer qualifies as a crime of violence to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).[1]
The Supreme Court recently invalidated the residual clause of the crime of violence definition under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) (3) (B) . United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319, 2323-24 (2019). The precise question remaining before the court is whether Hobbs Act Robbery is a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). The Fourth Circuit has recently decided this issue. United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019) ("Accordingly, we conclude that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under the force clause of Section 924(c).") (citing United States v. Garcia-Ortiz, 904 F.3d 102, 109 (1st Cir. 2018); United States v. Hill, 890 F.3d 51, 60 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Rivera, 847 F.3d 847, 849 (7th Cir. 2017); In re Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 2016)).
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's motion, [DE #107], is DENIED. Petitioner's motion to extend time to file supplemental briefing, [DE #138], is DENIED AS MOOT. The clerk is directed to close this case.
[1] In the Johnson decision, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated the residual clause found in 18 U.S.C. &sect; 924(e) (2} (B) (ii) ("Armed Career Criminal Act" or "ACCA"). Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2557. In Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016), the Supreme Court held the rule pronounced in Johnson is retroactively applicable on collateral review. The court notes petitioner timely filed his motion to vacate within one year of Johnson. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). ...