United States v. Hassan Ali, 991 F.3d 561

Background

Hassan Ali organized and led a July 2013 series of armed robberies (two Food Lion stores, a beauty salon, and a Brink’s armored‑truck robbery) with four co‑defendants; they split proceeds after each theft.
The four co‑defendants accepted plea deals in exchange for government testimony at Ali’s trial; all four testified about planning, roles, weapons, and distributions.
Several co‑defendants were held in limited courthouse holding‑cell space and were therefore in proximity between testimony sessions; the court did not physically separate all witnesses but instructed counsel/witnesses not to discuss testimony and offered to send witnesses back to jail.
The jury received a general verdict form (no special interrogatories) and was instructed that Hobbs Act robbery guilt could be found under either aiding‑and‑abetting or conspiracy theories; §924(c) convictions were tied to a robbery conviction under either theory.
The jury convicted Ali of four Hobbs Act aiding‑and‑abetting robbery counts, four §924(c) firearm counts, and one felon‑in‑possession count; Ali received a lengthy composite sentence and appealed.
On appeal Ali raised three claims: (1) district court abused discretion by failing to sequester/co‑separate co‑defendant witnesses; (2) the court erred in denying a new trial based on post‑trial declarations alleging collusion; and (3) §924(c) convictions are invalid because Hobbs Act conspiracy (one instructed theory) is not a crime of violence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sequestration of co‑defendant witnesses (Rule 615)	Ali: court abused discretion by allowing co‑defendants to remain in courthouse holding cells together, enabling discussion of testimony and tailoring.	Govt: no Rule 615 violation because witnesses were excluded from courtroom; court reasonably managed limited holding space, gave anti‑discussion instructions, offered to send witnesses back, and defense counsel declined some options.	No abuse of discretion. Rule 615’s mandatory exclusion applies to courtroom presence; court’s out‑of‑court measures and cross‑examination remedies were sufficient.
Motion for new trial based on new evidence (Rule 33)	Ali: post‑trial declarations (his and Maggard’s) that co‑defendants discussed testimony warranted a new trial.	Govt: Ali’s declaration was not newly discovered; Maggard’s statement is impeachment‑only and fails the Chavis five‑part test.	No abuse of discretion. Ali’s statement was not new; Maggard’s was merely impeachment and would not probably produce acquittal.
§924(c) predicate and jury instruction error	Ali: jury was instructed that §924(c) could be satisfied by Hobbs Act conspiracy (invalid predicate after Simms) or aiding/abetting; because instruction included an invalid predicate and the verdict form gave no way to know which theory prevailed, convictions must be vacated.	Govt: although conspiracy is not a valid §924(c) predicate, aiding/abetting Hobbs Act robbery is a valid predicate and the record (cell‑site data, co‑defendant testimony) overwhelmingly supports aiding/abetting, so any instructional error was harmless under plain‑error review.	Plain‑error review: instructional error was plain as to conspiracy, but aiding/abetting is a valid predicate and evidence overwhelmingly supports aiding/abetting; Ali failed to show prejudice. Convictions affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Rhynes, 218 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2000) (treats sequestration as evidentiary ruling and discusses scope of Rule 615)
United States v. Farnham, 791 F.2d 331 (4th Cir. 1986) (courtroom Rule 615 violations treated strictly with presumption of prejudice)
United States v. Simms, 914 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (Hobbs Act conspiracy is not a categorical crime of violence)
United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019) (Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence)
Gonzales v. Duenas‑Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (aiding and abetting treated as equivalent to principal for categorical‑match analysis)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explains categorical and modified categorical approaches)
United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941 (4th Cir. 2010) (burden on defendant to show erroneous instruction caused conviction under plain‑error review)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (sets plain‑error standard)