Opinion ID: 6112520
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conviction Challenge (Alexander)

Text: Alexander contends that his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)—which requires that he knowingly use, carry, brandish and discharge a firearm—must be vacated because Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1) is not a “crime of violence” as defined in § 924(c)(3)(A). Relying on United States v. Davis, -- U.S. --, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), Alexander contends that “it is unclear whether [he] was convicted under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A) or the residual clause of § 924(c)(3)(B) . . . [and] a conviction under the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.” Based on the statutory definition for “robbery,” Alexander also argues, “robbery can be defined in such a way that robbery does not necessarily contain an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” But as Alexander concedes, in United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285, 292 (6th Cir. 2017), we specifically held that a conviction under § 1951(b)(1) constitutes “a crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A). And after Davis was decided, we held that “Gooch remains good law.” United States v. Holmes, 797 F. App’x 912, 918 (6th Cir. 2019); see also Porter v. United States, 959 F.3d 800, 804 (6th Cir. 2020). Because Alexander was convicted under § 924(c)(3) in relation to a crime of violence—Hobbs Act Robbery—that conviction satisfies the elements clause. Accordingly, vacatur is not warranted on these grounds.