Court Opinion

ID: 6323528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-15 20:01:52.782557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:38.350475
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             MAR 15 2022
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-35794

             Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00156-DWM
                                                      9:99-cr-00018-DWM-1
 v.

JOHN LANNY LYNCH,                               MEMORANDUM*

             Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-35795

             Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. Nos. 9:16-cv-00085-DWM
                                                      9:11-cr-00017-DWM-1
 v.

JOSEPH BERNARD WRIGHT,

             Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeals from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Montana
                   Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,             No.   17-36003

         Plaintiff-Appellee,          D.C. Nos.   1:16-cv-00090-SPW
                                                  1:08-cr-00014-SPW-3
v.

JACOB KRAUS,

         Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,             No.   17-36004

         Plaintiff-Appellee,          D.C. Nos.   1:16-cv-00089-SPW
                                                  1:05-cr-00052-SPW-2
v.

CHUOI SAM,

         Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,             No.   17-36007

         Plaintiff-Appellee,          D.C. Nos.   1:16-cv-00096-SPW
                                                  1:05-cr-00052-SPW-1
v.

YURI CHACHANKO,

         Defendant-Appellant.

ROLANDO PEREZ,                        No.   18-35070

                                -2-
             Petitioner-Appellant,             D.C. Nos.   1:16-cv-00100-SPW
                                                           1:06-cr-00026-SPW-1
 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Respondent-Appellee.

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Montana
                   Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                      No.   18-35087

             Plaintiff-Appellee,               D.C. Nos.   9:16-cv-00077-DLC
                                                           9:12-cr-00017-DLC-1
 v.

STEVEN ALEXANDER ACTON,

             Defendant-Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Montana
                  Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

                         Submitted December 9, 2021**
                             Seattle, Washington

      **
             The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
                                       -3-
Before: McKEOWN and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.

      Defendants-appellants appeal the denials of their motions under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct their 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions and

sentences. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de

novo the denial of a § 2255 motion, United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043,

1045 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

      Defendants-appellants’ contention that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery

is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed by our

precedent. See Young v. United States, 22 F.4th 1115, 1122!23 (9th Cir. 2022)

(explaining that there is “no distinction between aiding-and-abetting liability and

liability as a principal under federal law[,]” and holding that “aiding and abetting a

crime of violence, such as armed bank robbery, is also a crime of violence”). Because

Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence, see United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d

1251, 1260!61 (9th Cir. 2020), and aiding and abetting a crime of violence is also a

crime of violence, see Young, 22 F.4th at 1122!23, we affirm the district courts’

denials of defendants-appellants’ § 2255 motions.

      AFFIRMED.

      ***
            The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
                                         -4-