Court Opinion

ID: 9383391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 16:00:40.153097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:44.728282
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1064     Document: 010110835315       Date Filed: 03/30/2023      Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          March 30, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                              No. 22-1064
  v.                                                (D.C. No. 1:21-CR-00024-RBJ-2)
                                                               (D. Colo.)
  KITIRA CHRISTINE HAYS, a/k/a Kitira
  Hays,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before McHUGH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       After examining the Anders brief filed by Defendant-Appellant Kitira Hays’s

 counsel and the entire appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that

 oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See

 Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered

 submitted without oral argument.

       Hays pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of

 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951, and using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a

 crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A). Hays waived her

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-1064    Document: 010110835315        Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 2

 right to appeal except for the following issue: does her conviction for aiding and

 abetting Hobbs Act robbery amount to a “crime of violence” for purposes of

 § 924(c).1 After answering that question in the affirmative and, therefore, denying

 her motion to dismiss the § 924(c) charge, the district court sentenced Hays to a total

 term of imprisonment of 177 months, consisting of 57 months as to the Hobbs Act

 conviction and 120 months as to the § 924(c) conviction. After filing a timely notice

 of appeal, Hays’s counsel filed in this court a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting he could find no meritorious basis for appeal and

 moving to withdraw as counsel. For those reasons set out below, this court grants

 counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismisses this appeal.

       This appeal is before the court on Hays’s counsel’s Anders brief. Pursuant to

 Anders, counsel may “request permission to withdraw where counsel conscientiously

 examines a case and determines that any appeal would be wholly frivolous.” United

 States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005). Counsel is required to

 submit an appellate brief “indicating any potential appealable issues.” Id. Once

 notified of counsel’s brief, the defendant may then submit additional arguments to

 this court. Id. We “must then conduct a full examination of the record to determine

 whether defendant’s claims are wholly frivolous.” Id. Despite being notified of her

 entitlement to do so on at least two occasions, Hays did not file a brief in response to

       1
         As aptly noted by Hays’s appellate counsel, there exist no facts in the record
 supporting a non-frivolous argument that the partial waiver of appellate rights is
 unenforceable under the standard set out by this court in United States v. Hahn, 359
 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-1064    Document: 010110835315        Date Filed: 03/30/2023    Page: 3

 counsel’s Anders brief. The government also declined to file a brief. Thus, our

 resolution of the case is based on counsel’s Anders brief and this court’s independent

 review of the record. That independent review demonstrates the issue set out in

 counsel’s Anders brief is wholly frivolous.

       This court has squarely held that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence

 under § 924(c). United States v. Melgar-Cabrera, 892 F.3d 1053, 1060-66 (10th Cir.

 2018). “[T]he fact that the defendant in Melgar-Cabrera did not provide the same or

 similar argument as [the] argument here is of no moment; we are bound to follow

 Melgar-Cabrera absent a contrary decision by the Supreme Court or en banc

 reconsideration of Melgar-Cabrera.” United States v. Baker, 49 F.4th 1348, 1358

 (10th Cir. 2022). Furthermore, as recognized in counsel’s Anders brief, the Supreme

 Court’s post-Melgar-Cabrera decision in United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015,

 2020 (2022), does not in any way call into question this court’s holding in Melgar-

 Cabrera. Baker, 49 F.3d at 1360. Finally, the fact Hays pleaded guilty to aiding and

 abetting Hobbs Act robbery does not create a reasonable question as to whether her

 conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” for purposes of § 924(c). See United

 States v. Deiter, 890 F.3d 1203, 1214-16 (10th Cir. 2018) (holding that aiding and

 abetting federal bank robbery is a “violent felony” under the elements clause of the

 Armed Career Criminals Act). As Deiter makes clear, “aiding and abetting is not a

 separate crime but simply eliminates the legal distinction between aiders and abettors

 and principals. Therefore, it makes sense to look to the underlying statute of

 conviction, rather than § 2, to decide whether the elements clause is satisfied.” Id. at

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-1064    Document: 010110835315         Date Filed: 03/30/2023      Page: 4

 1216; see also United States v. Styles, No. 19-3217, 2022 WL 34126, at *2-3 (3d Cir.

 Jan. 4, 2022) (collecting cases, including this court’s decision in Deiter for the

 proposition that aiding and abetting a crime of violence is itself a crime of violence

 under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A)).

       Pursuant to the Anders mandate, this court has undertaken an independent

 review of the entire record in this case. Our review demonstrates that issue raised in

 counsel’s Anders brief is undeniably frivolous. Likewise, this court’s review of the

 entire record reveals no other potentially meritorious issues. This is particularly true

 given that the record reveals Hays validly waived her appellate rights as to all issues

 except for the issue set out in counsel’s Anders brief. Accordingly, we GRANT

 counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS this appeal.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Michael R. Murphy
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             4