Court Opinion

ID: 4654726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-26 21:00:44.668256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:46.325648
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JAN 26 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-55246

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. Nos.    3:16-cv-01532-WQH
                                                             3:95-cr-00072-WQH-4
 v.

LAMONT BENEDICT NELSON, AKA                     MEMORANDUM*
Lamont Lee,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                   William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before:      McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Federal prisoner Lamont Benedict Nelson appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and

sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see

United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Nelson challenges his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and

924(c) for aiding and abetting the use and carry of a firearm during the commission

of a crime of violence. Nelson’s contention that Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1951, is not a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is

foreclosed. See United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

2020) (reaffirming that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under the

elements clause of § 924(c)(3)). Nelson asserts that Dominguez was wrongly

decided, but as a three-judge panel, we are bound by the decision. See Miller v.

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound

by circuit precedent unless that precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with

intervening higher authority).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   17-55246