United States v. Eric Scott, 14 F.4th 190

Eric Scott was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (possession of a firearm by a felon) and faced sentencing in Feb 2020.
The PSR classified Scott as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) based on two prior felonies: a 2019 felon-in-possession and a 2019 Hobbs Act robbery conviction (18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1)).
The career-offender enhancement raised Scott’s base offense level from 20 to 24, increasing the advisory Guideline range from 57–71 months to 84–105 months; the district court adopted the PSR and imposed 90 months consecutively.
Scott did not object to the enhancement in district court; he argued on appeal that Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a).
The Third Circuit applied the categorical approach, concluded Hobbs Act robbery sweeps more broadly than the Guidelines’ "crime of violence" definitions (it reaches force against property), held the enhancement was erroneous and plain, found prejudice (Guideline range affected), vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Judge Phipps dissented, arguing the categorical analysis is complex and the error was not "plain" under the plain-error standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (categorical approach)	Scott: It is not; Hobbs Act robbery reaches force against property and thus does not match the Guidelines' Elements Clause or the generic "robbery" envisioned by the Guidelines.	Gov't: Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence — it is equivalent to the Guidelines' robbery (and, if necessary, robbery + extortion) because the Hobbs Act punishes force or threats.	Held: Not a crime of violence. Elements Clause requires force "against the person of another," and the enumerated-offense comparison fails because Hobbs Act robbery covers force against property; combining enumerated offenses (robbery + extortion) does not cure the mismatch.
Whether the district court’s erroneous use of Hobbs Act robbery as a predicate is "plain error" on appellate review	Scott: Yes — under current law and circuit consensus the error is plain and prejudicial.	Gov't: No — the categorical analysis is complex and the outcome was subject to reasonable dispute; error was not plain at sentencing.	Held: Error was plain. Multiple Circuits uniformly held the same, the Guidelines text is clear, Scott showed prejudice (Guideline range increased), and failing to correct would undermine fairness/integrity.

Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (categorical-approach principle: compare statute's elements to generic offense)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (limitations of modified categorical approach; element-level comparison)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error-review framework)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (plain-Guidelines-error and fourth-prong discussion regarding fairness/integrity)
United States v. Camp, 903 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. holding that Hobbs Act robbery is not a Guidelines "crime of violence")
United States v. O'Connor, 874 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. holding Hobbs Act robbery not a Guidelines crime of violence)
United States v. Eason, 953 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. same conclusion)
United States v. Green, 996 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. same conclusion)