United States v. Desmond Camp
903 F.3d 594
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Desmond Camp pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. §1951), a §924(c) firearms count, and being a felon in possession (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1)) for an armed dollar-store robbery in 2015.
- The district court imposed a 372-month sentence: 25 years mandatory minimum on the §924(c) count (based on a prior §924(c) conviction) plus consecutive terms on the other counts, and classified Camp as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Camp appealed, arguing Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" and so cannot serve as a predicate for his §924(c) conviction or his career-offender designation under USSG §4B1.1.
- The government conceded Camp preserved his Guidelines challenge but initially argued Camp waived the §924(c) challenge; the panel did not decide waiver because it resolved the merits against Camp on §924(c).
- The Sixth Circuit held Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under §924(c)’s use-of-force clause (binding Gooch precedent), but is not a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines’ definition (USSG §4B1.2).
- Judgment: conviction affirmed, sentence vacated, and case remanded for resentencing consistent with the holding that Hobbs Act robbery is not a Guidelines "crime of violence."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. §924(c) | Camp: Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence for §924(c) | Gov: Binding precedent (Gooch) establishes Hobbs Act robbery meets §924(c)’s use-of-force clause | Held: No reversible error—Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under §924(c) (Gooch controls) |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines (USSG §4B1.2) | Camp: Hobbs Act robbery cannot serve as a career-offender predicate under the Guidelines | Gov: Hobbs Act robbery matches the Guidelines’ enumerated offenses (robbery/extortion) or use-of-force clause | Held: Hobbs Act robbery is NOT a Guidelines "crime of violence"—it is broader than generic robbery and does not match the Guidelines’ extortion definition (which requires threats/force directed at physical injury to a person) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 2017) (held Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under §924(c)’s use-of-force clause)
- United States v. O’Connor, 874 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2017) (held Hobbs Act robbery is not a categorical match to Guidelines robbery or amended extortion)
- United States v. Yates, 866 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2017) (discusses generic robbery definition and categorical approach)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (establishes categorical-approach framework for predicate-offense analysis)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (clarifies categorical approach and divisibility analysis)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (addressed vagueness of residual clause; referenced but not necessary to decide §924(c) issue)