Court Opinion

ID: 9892838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 00:00:25.923773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:34.281869
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20397        Document: 00516942816             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/24/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                            FILED
                                     ____________
                                                                                October 24, 2023
                                      No. 22-20397                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jose Salomon Madrid-Paz,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:17-CR-345-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jose Salomon Madrid-Paz (“Madrid-Paz”) challenges his conviction
   and sentence stemming from his involvement in a series of armed robberies.
   Because we find no reversible error, we AFFIRM.
                                              I.
         Madrid-Paz was part of a “rip crew” that committed armed robberies
   of gaming rooms and retail businesses. He was charged with (1) one count of
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20397       Document: 00516942816             Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/24/2023

                                       No. 22-20397

   conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); (2) four
   counts of aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); 1
   and (3) five counts of aiding and abetting the use and carrying of a firearm
   during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 2
          Madrid-Paz moved to dismiss the § 924(c) counts of the indictment,
   arguing that substantive Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under
   § 924(c)(3) as a matter of law and that Hobbs Act robbery, therefore, was not
   a valid predicate to support a conviction under § 924(c). He argued that
   conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is not a separate offense from
   Hobbs Act robbery, but rather a manner or means of committing the
   indivisible offense of Hobbs Act robbery. Thus, he asserted that substantive
   Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements
   clause because conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of
   violence.
          The district court denied his motion and reasoned that Hobbs Act
   conspiracy is its own offense separate and apart from Hobbs Act robbery, not
   a manner or means of satisfying the elements of Hobbs Act robbery. Madrid-
   Paz then pleaded guilty to two counts of aiding and abetting Hobbs Act
   robbery and two counts of aiding and abetting violations of § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii),
   pursuant to a plea agreement. The plea agreement included a waiver of his
   right to appeal. The district court sentenced Madrid-Paz to a total of 312
   months in prison, imposing concurrent terms of 144 months on the aiding

          _____________________
          1
            The indictment stated that Madrid-Paz and his co-defendants sought to commit
   robberies in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a).
          2
            One count applied to each of the four counts for aiding and abetting Hobbs Act
   robbery charged. The final count is applied to the one count for conspiracy to commit a
   Hobbs Act robbery.

                                             2
Case: 22-20397        Document: 00516942816             Page: 3      Date Filed: 10/24/2023

                                         No. 22-20397

   and abetting Hobbs Act robbery charges and consecutive terms of 84 months
   on the § 924(c) charges. He timely appealed.
           On appeal, Madrid-Paz challenges whether substantive Hobbs Act
   robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c), arguing that conspiracy to
   commit and attempted Hobbs Act robbery are manners or means of
   committing substantive Hobbs Act robbery. 3
                                              II.
           This court reviews the legal question of whether a predicate offense
   qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c) de novo. See United States v.
   Smith, 957 F.3d 590, 592 (5th Cir. 2020). Section 924(c)(3)(A), also known
   as the elements clause, sets the requirements for which predicate offenses
   qualify as a crime of violence. Id. at 592–93. It states that a felony offense is a
   crime of violence if it “has as an element, the use, attempted use, or
   threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.”
   18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).
           The Supreme Court recently made clear that attempted Hobbs Act
   robbery is not a crime of violence. United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015,
   2020–21 (2022). The Taylor Court determined that “attempted Hobbs Act
   robbery does not satisfy the elements clause” because the Government is not
   required to prove that a defendant “used, attempted to use, or even
   threatened to use force against” another or their property to achieve a
   conviction for attempt. Id. at 2020. However, the law of this circuit and our
   sister circuits demonstrate that substantive “Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of
   violence under the elements clause.” United States v. Hill, 63 F.4th 335, 363

           _____________________
           3
             Madrid-Paz’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver. However, the
   Government has stated that it “is not asserting the waiver and accordingly this Court need
   not address its scope.”

                                               3
Case: 22-20397         Document: 00516942816               Page: 4       Date Filed: 10/24/2023

                                           No. 22-20397

   (5th Cir. 2023). In numerous cases, this court has rejected different
   formulations of the same argument that substantive Hobbs Act robbery
   cannot qualify as a crime of violence. 4
           The most recent iteration occurred in United States v. Hill, where the
   panel determined that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a
   crime of violence that is a valid predicate offense for § 924(c). 63 F.4th at
   363. The Hill panel noted that “the substantive equivalence of aiding and
   abetting liability with principal liability means that aiding and abetting Hobbs
   Act robbery is, like Hobbs Act robbery itself, a crime of violence.” Id. Thus,
   the panel concluded that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is a valid
   predicate offense for § 924(c). Id.
           Hill controls the outcome here. Madrid-Paz pleaded guilty to two
   counts of aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery and two counts of aiding and
   abetting the use and carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
   violence under § 924(c). He now argues that substantive Hobbs Act robbery
   cannot qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause because
   conspiracy to commit and attempted Hobbs Act robbery are manners or
   means of committing substantive Hobbs Act robbery. He maintains that
   because the Supreme Court has declared that attempted Hobbs Act robbery
   does not satisfy the elements clause, substantive Hobbs Act robbery cannot
   satisfy the elements clause either. In sum, he interprets § 1951(a) as
   prescribing one indivisible offense and not three separate offenses. This
   strained interpretation cannot be squared with our precedent. 5 Accordingly,
           _____________________
           4
             See United States v. Bowens, 907 F.3d 347, 353–54 & nn.10–11 (5th Cir. 2018)
   (collecting cases rejecting the argument that substantive Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime
   of violence under § 924(c)).
           5
            See Hill, 63 F.4th at 363; see also United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267, 275 (5th Cir.
   2017) (“It was not error—plain or otherwise—for the district court to classify a Hobbs Act
   robbery as a crime of violence.”); Bowens, 907 F.3d at 353 (“[B]inding circuit precedent

                                                 4
Case: 22-20397        Document: 00516942816             Page: 5      Date Filed: 10/24/2023

                                        No. 22-20397

   we reject Madrid-Paz’s assertion that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery
   is not a valid predicate offense for § 924(c).
                                             III.
           For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

           _____________________
   forecloses Bowens’s claim that Hobbs Act robbery is not a [crime of violence] predicate
   under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).”); 18 U.S.C. § 2 (“Whoever commits an offense against
   the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission,
   is punishable as a principal.”).

                                              5