947 F.3d 1021
7th Cir.2020Background
- Over eight days in October 2017, Kevin Ingram committed three Hobbs Act robberies and one attempted Hobbs Act robbery in Indianapolis; he was charged with Counts 1–4 (robbery/attempt) and Counts 5–8 (§924(c) firearm counts tied to each offense).
- Ingram admitted guilt to Counts 1–4 but contested the four §924(c) counts alleging he used/brandished a firearm during each offense.
- Evidence introduced included security camera footage (showing Ingram pushing a clerk while holding something), the clerk’s testimony that a hard, metal object was pressed to her back (she believed it was a gun), and testimony from Vyc torya Cobb that she saw Ingram with a small firearm the following day.
- For the October 16 robbery (Count 5), the camera did not clearly show the object and the clerk never saw the item’s face; Cobb’s testimony about October 17 was the primary corroborating evidence.
- The jury convicted on all counts; Ingram appealed arguing (1) insufficiency of evidence for Count 5 (brandishing a firearm) and (2) that attempted Hobbs Act robbery cannot be a §924(c) crime of violence predicate (relevant to Count 8).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ingram) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Ingram brandished a firearm during the Oct 16 robbery (Count 5) | Evidence was insufficient; no gun produced, camera didn’t show a weapon, and jury may not rely on proof from other robberies | Clerk’s testimony, security footage showing an object pressed to the clerk, and Cobb’s testimony seeing a gun the next day provided circumstantial support to infer a firearm | Affirmed. A reasonable jury could infer a firearm; Cobb’s testimony could be considered circumstantial evidence linking the October 16 incident to the October 17 sighting |
| Whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c) so it can serve as the predicate for a §924(c) conviction (Count 8) | Attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence and thus cannot predicate a §924(c) conviction | Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence; attempt requires specific intent to commit all elements, so an attempt to a violent felony qualifies as a crime of violence | Affirmed. Under circuit precedent (extended from Hill), attempted Hobbs Act robbery counts as a crime of violence and therefore valid predicate for §924(c); plain-error review does not change outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 874 F.3d 990 (7th Cir.) (standard for Rule 29 sufficiency review)
- United States v. Doody, 600 F.3d 752 (7th Cir.) (clarifying de novo sufficiency review and rational-jury standard)
- United States v. Lawson, 810 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir.) (lay witness testimony can suffice to prove a defendant used a firearm)
- United States v. Rivera, 847 F.3d 847 (7th Cir.) (Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under the categorical/elements approach)
- United States v. Villegas, 655 F.3d 662 (7th Cir.) (attempt requires specific intent to commit substantive offense)
- Hill v. United States, 877 F.3d 717 (7th Cir.) (attempt to a violent felony is a violent felony when attempt requires intent to commit all elements)
- United States v. D.B.B., 903 F.3d 684 (7th Cir.) (application of Hill to attempted offenses)
- United States v. Cureton, 739 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir.) (plain-error standard when issue not raised below)
- United States v. Wilson, 166 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir.) (upholding §924(c) conviction where circumstantial evidence and related incidents supported inference of a gun)