Court Opinion

ID: 4654727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-26 21:00:44.795723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:46.367383
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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.    17-55187

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. Nos.    3:16-cv-01575-WQH
                                                             3:95-cr-00072-WQH-1
 v.

KEITH LAMAR LOTT, AKA Kevin                     MEMORANDUM*
Moore,

                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 Keith Lamar Lott 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).
      Lott challenges his convictions and sentence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and

924(c)(1) for using and carrying a firearm and aiding and abetting the use and

carry of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. Lott’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)). Lott 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                                   17-55187