Travis Horne v. United States, 20-14503

Horne was convicted at trial of multiple counts, including possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 8), and was charged with Hobbs Act conspiracy (Count 2), carjacking (Count 7), and Hobbs Act robbery (Count 12).
Trial evidence included testimony that Horne shot into a car and participated in a November 1998 carjacking; both parties’ closing tied Count 7 (carjacking) and Count 8 (§ 924(c)) to that incident.
The district court instructed the jury that it could convict on Count 8 if the firearm was used in furtherance of any one of several predicates—Counts 1, 2, 7, or 12—creating a jury-theory-of-guilt risk.
Under controlling law, Hobbs Act conspiracy (Count 2) cannot serve as a § 924(c) predicate (per Eleventh Circuit precedent), so at least one instructed predicate was invalid.
Horne moved to vacate his § 924(c) conviction; the district court ultimately denied relief after inviting and granting the Government’s motion for reconsideration of an earlier vacatur. Horne appealed.

Issue	Horne's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instruction allowing conviction based on multiple predicates (one invalid) required automatic vacatur under Stromberg or is subject to harmless-error review	Instructional (Stromberg) error here required vacatur because the general verdict could have rested on an invalid predicate	Harmless-error applies; the record (special verdict re: Count 7, indictment language, and both sides’ closing) shows the verdict rested on the valid carjacking predicate	Harmless-error governs; district court did not err — no "grave doubt" that invalid predicate determined verdict, so § 924(c) conviction stands
Whether the district court abused its discretion by inviting and then granting the Government’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior grant of vacatur	Inviting and granting reconsideration allowed the Government to relitigate arguments it could have raised earlier; this was an abuse of discretion	A district court may correct its legal error sua sponte before appeal and may invite a motion to resolve the error without forcing an immediate appeal	No abuse of discretion; district court acted within its discretion to invite and consider reconsideration

Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) (general verdict based on multiple theories that includes an invalid ground may require vacatur)
Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57 (2008) (instructional errors arising from multiple theories are subject to harmless-error review)
Granda v. United States, 990 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2021) (harmless-error standard requires "grave doubt" to grant collateral relief for trial error)
Davis v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (struck § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2019) (Hobbs Act conspiracy does not qualify as a § 924(c) crime-of-violence predicate under the elements clause)
In re Cannon, 931 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2019) (petitioner bears burden to show likelihood jury relied solely on an invalid predicate)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless-error standard requiring that error have a "substantial and injurious effect or influence" to warrant relief)