62 F.4th 108
3d Cir.2023Background
- On December 3, 2013, three masked men (including Stoney) entered a Cracker Barrel and robbed patrons at gunpoint, taking over $8,000.
- Police later found Stoney in nearby woods; a loaded 9mm handgun was recovered near him; he admitted involvement and identified co-defendants.
- A federal grand jury charged Stoney with Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and use of a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)); his § 924(c) count referenced the Hobbs Act robbery as the predicate.
- At plea, Stoney admitted committing a completed gunpoint robbery; he later filed a second/successive § 2255 motion arguing his conviction should be treated as based on attempted robbery (which Taylor held is not a § 924(c) crime of violence) or, alternatively, that his liability theories (Pinkerton/accomplice) do not qualify.
- The district court denied relief; the Third Circuit reviewed de novo legal questions and for clear error on facts and affirmed, finding the record shows a completed Hobbs Act robbery that qualifies as a § 924(c) crime of violence.
Issues
| Issue | Stoney's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predicate: attempted vs completed Hobbs Act robbery for § 924(c) | Plea was ambiguous; at minimum he pleaded to attempted robbery (post-Taylor, not a § 924(c) predicate) | Plea colloquy and record show he admitted a completed gunpoint robbery | The plea/admissions establish a completed Hobbs Act robbery (not attempted) |
| May court look beyond indictment to plea agreement/record to identify § 924(c) predicate? | He urges treating the record as ambiguous and limiting inquiry | Court may consult plea agreement, factual proffer, and plea colloquy to determine predicate | Court holds record/plea may establish the § 924(c) predicate and does so here |
| Does reliance on Pinkerton/accomplice liability change § 924(c) analysis? | Argues his § 924(c) conviction was based on those theories and thus may not meet elements clause | Stoney personally committed the completed robbery, so liability theories are irrelevant | Court declines to rely on Pinkerton/accomplice theories; personal conduct establishes the predicate |
| Is completed Hobbs Act robbery categorically a crime of violence after Taylor? | Relies on Taylor’s rejection of attempted robbery as a crime of violence to undermine predicate | A completed Hobbs Act robbery requires actual or threatened force and therefore meets § 924(c)(3)(A) | Court holds completed Hobbs Act robbery is categorically a § 924(c)(3)(A) crime of violence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (U.S. 2022) (attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a § 924(c)(3)(A) crime of violence)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (U.S. 2013) (categorical-approach framework for predicate offenses)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (U.S. 2019) (struck down § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (elements increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury)
- In re Navarro, 931 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2019) (plea agreement and factual proffer can establish a § 924(c) predicate)
- United States v. Walker, 990 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2021) (Third Circuit held completed Hobbs Act robbery is a valid § 924(c) predicate)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1946) (discusses conspiracy-based liability theory)