United States v. Antron Latroy Langston, 662 F. App'x 787

Langston and codefendant Armster robbed a convenience store; Armster pointed a firearm, Langston jumped the counter, took about $5,000 and a gun; both later identified by the victim and tipsters.
Langston pleaded guilty to Count 1 (conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery) and Count 3 (brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); factual proffer and plea colloquy admitted the conduct and elements.
PSI recommended an adjusted offense level 18 and criminal-history category III, producing an advisory range of 33–41 months on Count 1; Count 3 carried a mandatory consecutive minimum of 84 months under § 924(c).
At sentencing the district court adopted the PSI, denied Langston’s request to vary below the guidelines on Count 1 (he sought parity with Armster), and imposed 33 months on Count 1 and consecutive 84 months on Count 3 (total 117 months).
On appeal Langston argued (1) the 33-month sentence on Count 1 was substantively unreasonable, chiefly because of disparity with Armster’s 100-month sentence, and (2) the 84-month consecutive § 924(c) sentence was erroneous because, after Johnson, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery cannot serve as a § 924(c) "crime of violence."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive reasonableness of 33-month sentence on Count 1	Langston: 33 months is unreasonable given disparity with Armster (100 months); requested downward variance for parity and mitigating factors	Gov’t/District: Guidelines low-end appropriate; Langston has more serious criminal-history content; not similarly situated to Armster	Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable; district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors and relied on Langston’s criminal history and other conduct
Validity of consecutive 84-month § 924(c) sentence where predicate was Hobbs Act conspiracy	Langston: After Johnson, residual-clause vagueness undermines using Hobbs Act conspiracy as a § 924(c) "crime of violence," so consecutive term invalid	Gov’t/District: Langston admitted in plea that the Hobbs Act conspiracy was a crime of violence; moreover, it is not plain error because law unsettled whether § 924(c)(3)(B) is invalid and Hobbs Act robbery (and aiding/abetting) qualifies under the use-of-force clause	Affirmed — no plain error; plea admission and unsettled caselaw mean the district court did not plainly err imposing consecutive 84 months

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (establishes deferential abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (held ACCA residual clause unconstitutionally vague)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (a plea admits factual and legal elements supporting conviction)
Broce v. United States, 488 U.S. 563 (guilty plea comprehends factual and legal elements for a lawful sentence)
In re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337 (Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371 (district court may consider withheld adjudications and unprosecuted conduct at sentencing)
United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (sentencing disparities problematic only for similarly situated defendants)
United States v. Hoffman, 710 F.3d 1228 (plain-error requires error contrary to explicit statutory provisions or on-point precedent)