United States v. Jesse Bell
680 F. App'x 329
5th Cir.2017Background
- Jesse Lee Bell was convicted by a jury of multiple Hobbs Act robbery offenses, attempted robbery, several counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using/brandishing a firearm in relation to crimes of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Six months after trial but before sentencing, Bell moved to dismiss the § 924(c) counts and to vacate the jury verdicts on those counts, arguing his Hobbs Act robbery convictions are not "crimes of violence."
- Bell’s challenge relied on two premises: (1) § 924(c)(3)(B)’s definition of "crime of violence" is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States, and (2) Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) is not a categorical crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) because it can be committed without violent physical force.
- The district court denied Bell’s motion; on appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded its prior precedent controls: (a) decisions upholding § 16(b)’s constitutionality post-Johnson apply to § 924(c)(3)(B), and (b) Hobbs Act robbery is a categorical crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A).
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Bell’s motion and the characterization of his robbery offenses as crimes of violence under both § 924(c)(3)(A) and (B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague post-Johnson | § 924(c)(3)(B) mirrors § 16(b) and is void for vagueness under Johnson | Precedent upholding § 16(b) remains controlling; § 924(c)(3)(B) is materially identical and not void | Rejected; no plain error—§ 924(c)(3)(B) not void for vagueness |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a categorical "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) | Hobbs Act robbery can be committed without violent physical force, so it is not a categorical crime of violence | Fifth Circuit precedent holds Hobbs Act robbery qualifies categorically as a crime of violence | Rejected; Hobbs Act robbery is a categorical crime of violence |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (held ACCA's residual clause unconstitutional)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (upheld § 16(b) against vagueness challenge post-Johnson)
- United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2017) (held Hobbs Act robbery is a categorical crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
- United States v. Blevins, 755 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard of review: plain error)
- Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155 (5th Cir. 1986) (federal circuit precedent controls absent Supreme Court reversal)