United States v. Clarence Buck
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1814
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Buck and Allen were tried for a series of armed Hobbs Act robberies (T‑Mobile stores and a jewelry stall) in Houston; firearms were brandished in each robbery.
- First jury trial ended on day three when undisclosed discovery (witness statements, police interview, lineups) surfaced; the court granted a mistrial but denied motions to dismiss with prejudice.
- A second jury convicted both defendants of Hobbs Act conspiracy/robbery and multiple § 924(c) firearm offenses; Buck also convicted under § 922(g)(1).
- Sentences: Buck — 1,846 months (robbery terms concurrent, multiple consecutive § 924(c) terms, plus felon‑in‑possession), Allen — 1,435 months (robberies plus consecutive § 924(c) terms); Allen separately challenged a 119‑year calculation as Eighth Amendment excessive.
- On appeal defendants raised: retrial/double jeopardy and Brady/sanctions claims; whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" for § 924(c); adequacy of the Hobbs Act jury instruction on interstate commerce intent; sentencing issues (abduction enhancement, restitution allocation, Eighth Amendment); and admission of jailhouse informant testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retrial after mistrial (double jeopardy/goading) | Allen: government "goaded" defendants into moving for mistrial; retrial barred | Government: discovery failures inadvertent; no intent to provoke mistrial | No double jeopardy violation; no prosecutorial intent to goad the defense |
| Brady/discovery sanction (dismissal with prejudice) | Buck: failure to disclose warranted dismissal with prejudice | Government: omissions not intentional; materials later provided; prejudice curable | District court did not abuse discretion in denying dismissal; no Brady violation identified |
| Hobbs Act robbery as "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) | Defendants: Hobbs Act can reach nonviolent threats/future property injury and thus isn’t categorically a crime of violence | Government: Hobbs Act robbery requires actual/threatened force and meets § 924(c)(3)(A) | Court: Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) |
| Hobbs Act jury instruction — intent to affect commerce | Buck: instruction omitted requirement that defendant knew conduct would affect interstate commerce | Government: Hobbs Act and Fifth Circuit pattern do not require specific knowledge of commerce effect | Instruction proper; no error — defendant need not know effect on commerce |
| Abduction enhancement under Guidelines §2B3.1(b)(4)(A) | Buck: moving victims within store is not "different location" or supporting abduction enhancement; term ambiguous | Government: forcing employees from front to back fits abduction; "location" interpreted flexibly | Enhancement proper; movement within store supports abduction enhancement |
| Restitution joint and several liability | Buck: restitution should be allocated to co‑conspirators / those who profited (witnesses/cooperating defendants) | Government: only victims of the robberies may be made whole; those other parties were not convicted for the robberies | District court did not err in excluding those persons from joint/several restitution liability |
| Eighth Amendment proportionality of sentence (Allen) | Allen: 119‑year total is effectively life and grossly disproportionate | Government: sentence imposed within statutory framework, consecutive § 924(c) terms required by statute | Sentence within statutory limits and not constitutionally disproportionate |
| Admission of jailhouse informant testimony (Hewitt) | Allen: admission was ambush/unreliable and deprived fair trial | Government: cellmate statements admissible; defendant had opportunity to cross‑examine; cautionary instruction given | Admission not an abuse of discretion; testimony permissible and Confrontation right satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (1976) (double jeopardy protection against repeated prosecutions)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (retrial barred when prosecutor intentionally goads defendant into mistrial)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) ("physical force" interpreted as violent force in certain categorical‑analysis contexts)
- Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (2009) (admission of statements to cellmate does not violate Sixth Amendment right to counsel)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical approach to defining crimes for sentencing enhancements)
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993) (consecutive § 924(c) sentences may apply when convictions occur in a single proceeding)