Hunter v. United States
873 F.3d 388
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1994 Jeffrey Scott Hunter was convicted of federal armed bank robbery, conspiracy, felon-in-possession, and a § 924(c) offense (use of a firearm during a crime of violence); he received 210 months plus a consecutive five-year mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
- Hunter filed a § 2255 motion seeking to vacate the consecutive § 924(c) sentence, arguing the statute’s definition of “crime of violence” is unconstitutionally vague.
- The challenge targeted § 924(c)(3)(B) (the residual clause), which is worded similarly to the ACCA residual clause invalidated in Johnson v. United States.
- The district court denied relief, finding Hunter’s underlying offense—federal armed bank robbery—qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A) (the force clause) regardless of any residual-clause problem.
- On appeal the First Circuit relied on its recent decision in United States v. Ellison, which held federal bank robbery meets the force-clause definition of a crime of violence, and affirmed the denial of Hunter’s § 2255 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 924(c)(3)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague such that Hunter's § 924(c) sentence must be vacated | Hunter: § 924(c)(3)(B) mirrors ACCA’s residual clause invalidated in Johnson, so his § 924(c) conviction cannot rest on that clause | Government: Even if residual clause is void, the conviction stands because armed bank robbery qualifies under the force clause § 924(c)(3)(A) | Court: Did not decide residual-clause validity; held armed bank robbery qualifies under the force clause, so sentence stands |
| Whether federal armed bank robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the force clause § 924(c)(3)(A) | Hunter: Implicitly conceded the least serious means is intimidation and did not argue extortion; challenged applicability to his conviction | Government: Bank robbery (and armed bank robbery) has as an element use/attempted/threatened use of physical force and therefore meets the force clause | Court: Adopted Ellison; bank robbery (and thus armed bank robbery) is a crime of violence under the force clause |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ellison, 866 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2017) (held federal bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under a force-clause provision)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Glover, 558 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2009) (Guidelines interpretations persuasive in construing related statutory sentencing provisions)