United States v. Hill
890 F.3d 51
2d Cir.2016Background
- In 1997 Fredy Cuenca, a NYC livery cab driver, was robbed and fatally shot after two passengers (Powell and Hill) rode in his cab; Powell later admitted involvement and identified Hill as the shooter.
- Hill was indicted (after ~15 years) under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1) for causing death by use of a firearm during a § 924(c) offense; the alleged predicate § 924(c) crime of violence was Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1).
- At trial Hill was convicted; the district court sentenced him to 43 years; Hill appealed, arguing Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) (the force clause).
- The legal question required applying the categorical approach to determine whether the statutory elements of Hobbs Act robbery necessarily include the "use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another."
- The Second Circuit analyzed statutory text, Supreme Court precedent on "physical force," and persuasive circuit authority holding Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under the force clause, rejecting Hill’s hypotheticals that the statute could reach non-forceful conduct.
- The court affirmed Hill’s conviction, holding Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A); it did not decide issues about the residual/risk-of-force clause (§ 924(c)(3)(B)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a categorical "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) (force clause) | Hobbs Act "fear of injury" clause can encompass non-physical or indirect threats (e.g., threats to paint property, withhold medicine, poison) and thus does not necessarily require threatened or actual physical force | Hobbs Act robbery by its elements requires force, threatened force, or fear of injury that necessarily involves the threatened or actual use of physical force against person or property | Hobbs Act robbery qualifies categorically as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A); conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (establishing the categorical approach for predicate offenses)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (clarifying categorical vs. modified categorical approach)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (requiring a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that a statute reaches non-violent conduct)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (construing "physical force" as "violent force" in ACCA context)
- Castleman v. United States, 572 U.S. 157 (holding "physical force" can include indirect application, e.g., poisoning)
- United States v. Santos, 449 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.) (noting Hobbs Act robbery requires taking "by force" and discussing the element of violence)