996 F.3d 495
7th Cir.2021Background
- On May 2, 2019 Alfred Jerry robbed a cellphone store at gunpoint, pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and two other charges.
- His Presentence Report recorded prior Illinois convictions for robbery and attempted murder.
- The probation officer and district court classified Jerry’s Hobbs Act conviction as a "crime of violence," making him a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and increasing his guideline range from 130–141 months to 292–365 months.
- At sentencing Jerry objected to one prior state robbery counting as a crime of violence but did not object to treating the Hobbs Act conviction as a crime of violence; the court overruled his objection and imposed 264 months.
- While this appeal was pending, this court decided in Bridges v. United States that Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines.
- Applying plain-error review, the Seventh Circuit held the Guidelines error was clear at the time of appeal, affected Jerry’s substantial rights, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Jerry's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 | Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify and thus cannot count toward career-offender status | Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence and supports career-offender designation | Bridges controls: Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence, so it cannot count |
| Whether forfeited objection to Hobbs Act classification warrants relief under plain-error review | Even though forfeited, the error is plain on appeal, affected substantial rights, and warrants resentencing | The objection was forfeited; no plain error relief should be granted | Court applied plain-error standard, found all prongs satisfied, reversed and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridges v. United States, 991 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2021) (held Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines)
- Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013) (plain-error review considers law as of time of appellate review)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (incorrect Guidelines range can show reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (an incorrect Guidelines calculation can implicate fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings)
- United States v. Clark, 935 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2019) (an error is plain if law at the time of appellate review shows it clearly was an error)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts have discretion to consider § 3553(a) factors and vary from Guidelines)