United States v. Burns
24-1265-cr
2d Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Tashawn Burns pled guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence in federal district court (E.D.N.Y.).
- He was sentenced principally to 120 months’ imprisonment.
- Burns appealed, challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence) and, in a supplemental pro se brief, his Hobbs Act robbery conviction.
- Burns’s plea agreement included a waiver of appeal for the Hobbs Act conviction but not for the § 924(c) conviction.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both the legal sufficiency of the crime of violence designation under § 924(c) and whether the Hobbs Act requires specific intent to affect interstate commerce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is substantive Hobbs Act robbery a "crime of violence" for § 924(c)? | Burns: It is not; should not support a § 924(c) conviction | U.S.: Established precedent holds it is a crime of violence | Yes; precedent compels affirmance |
| Must Hobbs Act robbery conviction be vacated for lack of intent to affect interstate commerce? | Burns: No specific intent to affect commerce, so conviction improper | U.S.: Only a de minimis effect is needed; no specific intent required | No; Hobbs Act requires no such intent |
| Was there a sufficient factual basis for effect on interstate commerce? | Burns: Insufficient evidence his act affected interstate commerce | U.S.: Record shows effect (money stolen affected payroll for a business using interstate goods) | Yes; sufficient factual basis existed |
| Are prior Second Circuit decisions still binding post-Taylor? | Burns: Prior cases undermined by new Supreme Court reasoning | U.S.: Second Circuit precedent remains binding unless overruled en banc or by SCOTUS | Yes; prior circuit law remains binding |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCoy, 58 F.4th 72 (2d Cir. 2023) (affirmed that completed Hobbs Act robberies are crimes of violence under § 924(c) post-Taylor)
- United States v. Barrett, 102 F.4th 60 (2d Cir. 2024) (reaffirmed Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence and rejected arguments that nonphysical threats suffice)
- United States v. Arena, 180 F.3d 380 (2d Cir. 1999) (held Hobbs Act does not require intent to affect commerce; only that act has a natural effect)
- United States v. Jamison, 299 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2002) (de minimis effect on interstate commerce is sufficient under Hobbs Act)