Quandre Council v. United States
706 F. App'x 622
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Quandre Council, serving a 96-month federal sentence for Hobbs Act robbery and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence.
- Council argued that Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) after Johnson v. United States and thus cannot support the § 924(c) firearms enhancement.
- The district court rejected Council’s challenge to § 924(c)’s "use-of-force" clause, concluding Hobbs Act robbery qualifies categorically under that clause.
- The district court found § 924(c)’s residual "risk-of-force" clause unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson, but this ruling was not the basis for Council’s certificate of appealability.
- The Eleventh Circuit granted a certificate of appealability limited to whether Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)’s "use-of-force" clause.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed based on its recent precedent distinguishing § 924(c)’s residual clause from the ACCA residual clause and upholding § 924(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)’s use-of-force clause | Hobbs Act robbery does not categorically involve the "use" of physical force post-Johnson | § 924(c)’s use-of-force clause covers Hobbs Act robbery because the offense necessarily involves force | Affirmed: Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under § 924(c)’s use-of-force clause |
| Whether § 924(c)’s residual (risk-of-force) clause is unconstitutionally vague after Johnson | Council argued similarity to ACCA residual clause renders it void | Government argued material textual differences make § 924(c) distinguishable and constitutional | Court relied on Ovalles: § 924(c)’s residual clause is not unconstitutionally vague |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause and prompted challenges to similar statutory language)
- Ovalles v. United States, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017) (held § 924(c)’s residual clause is not unconstitutionally vague and distinguished it from ACCA)
- United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2008) (appellate principle that a court may affirm on any record-supported reason)
- Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for § 2255 proceedings)