Court Opinion

ID: 9369366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 17:00:32.489851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.633796
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 21-2009     Document: 010110810059      Date Filed: 02/08/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       February 8, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 21-2009
                                                (D.C. Nos. 1:16-CV-00355-JCH-KBM &
  ADAM JASON GARCIA,                                       1:09-CR-01766-JCH-1)
                                                              (D. N.M.)
        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MORITZ, BRISCOE, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

        Defendant Adam Garcia appeals the district court’s dismissal of his motion to

 vacate his convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In response, the government

 has filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule

 27.3(A)(1)(b). Having reviewed the parties’ appellate pleadings and the record on

 appeal, we grant the government’s motion for summary disposition and affirm the

 decision of the district court.

        *
         After examining the briefs and 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. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 21-2009    Document: 010110810059        Date Filed: 02/08/2023      Page: 2

                                             I

       In early 2009, Garcia robbed a Smoothie King in Albuquerque, New Mexico,

 by threatening two employees with a gun. Garcia was indicted by a federal grand

 jury in connection with that crime and, in 2010, Garcia pleaded guilty to one count of

 using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (i.e.,

 robbery under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)), in violation of 18 U.S.C.

 § 924(c)(1)(A), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and

 ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court

 concluded that Garcia was subject to an enhanced sentencing range under the Armed

 Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), and it sentenced him to a total

 term of imprisonment of 264 months, plus a three-year term of supervised release.

       In 2012, Garcia filed an unsuccessful motion to vacate his convictions

 pursuant to § 2255. In 2016, Garcia sought and was granted authorization by this

 court to file a second § 2255 motion challenging the ACCA sentencing enhancement.

 In 2019, he sought and received supplemental authorization from this court to

 challenge his § 924(c) conviction based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United

 States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (holding that the residual clause of

 § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague). Garcia then filed an amended § 2255

 motion asserting, in pertinent part, that Hobbs Act robbery is not a predicate crime of

 violence under § 924(c). The district court denied Garcia’s amended motion, but

 granted Garcia a certificate of appealability.

                                             2
Appellate Case: 21-2009    Document: 010110810059        Date Filed: 02/08/2023       Page: 3

                                            II

       Garcia filed his opening appellate brief on June 25, 2021. Garcia argues in

 that brief that “Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under

 [§] 924(c)(3), and therefore, [his] conviction under Section 924(c) should be

 vacated.” Aplt. Br. at 3. In support, Garcia argues that “[t]he least culpable conduct

 to sustain a conviction under Hobbs Act robbery is fear of future injury to an

 intangible property interest.” Id. at 5. He in turn argues that “[t]he elements of

 traditional, generic robbery and traditional, generic extortion overlap in the statutory

 definition of Hobbs Act robbery,” and that “this overlap means that Hobbs Act

 robbery criminalizes both violent and non-violent conduct, and so cannot qualify as a

 predicate crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c).” Id.

       On July 23, 2021, the government filed an unopposed motion to abate Garcia’s

 case pending the outcome of United States v. Baker, No. 20-3062 (10th Cir. filed

 Apr. 8, 2020), which involved a similar issue. We granted the motion and abated the

 case that same day.

       On August 16, 2022, we issued a decision in Baker. See United States v.

 Baker, 49 F.4th 1348 (10th Cir. 2022). We noted in Baker that in a prior decision,

 United States v. Melgar-Cabrera, 892 F.3d 1053, 1064–66 (10th Cir. 2018), we

 employed the categorical approach “to ‘conclu[de] that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime

 of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3).’” 49 F.4th at 1356 (quoting

 Melgar-Cabrera, 892 F.3d at 1060 n.4, 1061 (emphasis added in Baker)). We

 emphasized in Baker that it was important “[t]hat we reached this crime-of-violence

                                             3
Appellate Case: 21-2009    Document: 010110810059        Date Filed: 02/08/2023    Page: 4

 determination under a categorical approach” in Melgar-Cabrera “because it means

 that, in effect, we concluded that every act—including the least of the acts—

 criminalized by Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence.” Id. We in turn

 noted in Baker that, until such time as Melgar-Cabrera is overruled by the Supreme

 Court or by the en banc court, it represents “the law of this Circuit regardless of what

 might have happened had other arguments been made to the panel that decided the

 issue first.” Id. at 1358 (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original).

       Following the issuance of our decision in Baker, we lifted the abatement in

 Garcia’s case and directed the government to file a response to Garcia’s opening

 appellate brief. The government responded by filing a motion for summary

 disposition, as well as a response to Garcia’s opening brief. In both pleadings, the

 government argues that Garcia’s arguments on appeal are foreclosed by Baker and

 Melgar-Cabrera.

       In his appellate reply brief, Garcia acknowledges that Baker “clarified that

 Hobbs Act Robbery is categorically a crime of violence.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 1

 (emphasis in original). Garcia in turn argues that both Baker and Melgar-Cabrera

 “were wrongly decided” and should be reconsidered by this court. Id. That said,

 Garcia acknowledges that, “[a]bsent an intervening Supreme Court decision or en

 banc consideration, one panel may not overrule the decision of another panel.” Id. at

 2 (citing United States v. White, 782 F.3d 1118, 1126–27 (10th Cir. 2015)). In other

 words, Garcia concedes that the argument he raises on appeal is foreclosed by Baker

                                            4
Appellate Case: 21-2009   Document: 010110810059         Date Filed: 02/08/2023   Page: 5

 and Melgar-Cabrera, and that he is left to seek en banc review from this court and/or

 certiorari review from the Supreme Court.

                                          III

       Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED

 and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Mary Beck Briscoe
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             5