United States v. Chappelle
41 F.4th 102
| 2d Cir. | 2022Background
- Chappelle pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. §1951) and a §924(c) firearm charge; he had been designated a career offender under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 at original sentencing.
- On remand after this Court vacated the §924(c) conviction, the Probation Office again treated Chappelle as a career offender under the 2018 Guidelines, producing a higher Guidelines range.
- Chappelle argued Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” under the 2018 U.S.S.G. §4B1.2(a), and the district court concluded Application Note 1 (which treats conspiracies to commit crimes of violence as crimes of violence) was invalid insofar as it expanded §4B1.2; the court resentenced Chappelle without applying the career‑offender enhancement.
- The district court found (and the government appealed) that Hobbs Act robbery is broader than the Guidelines’ definition because it permits force or threats directed at property and may cover future threats.
- The Second Circuit affirmed on the narrower ground that substantive Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” under §4B1.2(a), so a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery likewise is not a crime of violence under Application Note 1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Chappelle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. §4B1.2(a) | Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically broader than the Guidelines' definition and aligns with enumerated offenses (robbery/extortion) | Hobbs Act robbery can be committed by threats against property or by future threats, so it is broader than §4B1.2(a) | Held: Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under §4B1.2(a) because it can be based on force/threats to property and on future (not only immediate) threats. |
| Whether a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence via Application Note 1 | Application Note 1 makes conspiracies crimes of violence when the substantive offense is one | Conspiracy cannot be a crime of violence here because the substantive Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence | Held: Because substantive Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence, the conspiracy is not a crime of violence under Application Note 1. |
| Whether the district court correctly invalidated Application Note 1 as inconsistent with §4B1.2(a) | Application Note 1 should be afforded controlling weight and is consistent with §4B1.2(a) | Application Note 1 improperly expands the Guidelines and is inconsistent with §4B1.2(a) (district court) | Court: Did not decide the validity of Application Note 1; resolution unnecessary because Hobbs Act robbery itself is not a crime of violence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022) (categorical-approach framework for defining predicate offenses)
- Davis v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (rejecting conduct‑specific approach to categorical inquiries)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (least-culpable-conduct principle under categorical approach)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (look to statutory elements rather than case facts)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (treatment of Guidelines commentary weight)
- United States v. Jones, 878 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2017) (definition of generic robbery as taking by force or intimidation from a person or immediate presence)
- United States v. Scott, 14 F.4th 190 (3d Cir. 2021) (holding Hobbs Act robbery broader than the §4B1.2 elements clause and enumerated robbery)