United States v. Ladarius Robinson
708 F. App'x 272
6th Cir.2017Background
- Ladarius Robinson and two accomplices attempted to steal OxyContin from a pharmacy; when the pharmacist could not open the safe, Robinson struck him with a handgun.
- Robinson pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and to aiding and abetting a crime of violence involving a firearm brandish (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- District court sentenced Robinson to 30 months on the Hobbs Act count and a consecutive mandatory minimum 84 months for brandishing under § 924(c).
- On appeal Robinson challenged (1) that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c), and (2) sought resentencing on the Hobbs Act count in light of Dean v. United States.
- The Sixth Circuit panel held that (1) prior Sixth Circuit precedent controls and Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A), and (2) under Dean the Hobbs Act sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing because the district court could have considered the mandatory § 924(c) term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) | Hobbs Act robbery does not categorically require use/threat of physical force and Gooch was wrongly decided | Sixth Circuit precedent (e.g., Gooch) treats Hobbs Act robbery as involving actual or threatened force | Affirmed: Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) |
| Whether § 924(c)(3)(B) (residual clause) is unconstitutionally vague | The residual clause is vague and cannot support conviction | Sixth Circuit precedent (Taylor) rejects the vagueness challenge; precedent binds panel | Rejected: vagueness challenge foreclosed by Sixth Circuit precedent |
| Whether the district court could consider the mandatory § 924(c) sentence when sentencing on the Hobbs Act count | District court could not consider the mandatory § 924(c) term (per prior Sixth Circuit rule) | After Dean, the mandatory § 924(c) term may be considered at the underlying-sentence proceeding | Vacated Hobbs Act sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with Dean |
| Whether any hypothetical nonviolent Hobbs Act robbery convictions undermine the categorical approach | Robinson raised hypotheticals but cited no actual cases of long-future-threat-only convictions | Government relied on precedent and lack of real-world counterexamples | Court found hypotheticals insufficient and upheld categorical analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 2017) (held Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
- United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2016) (held § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause not unconstitutionally vague in Sixth Circuit)
- United States v. Mitchell, 743 F.3d 1054 (6th Cir. 2014) (analyzed state-law robbery under ACCA; discussed fear/immediacy concepts)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (Supreme Court clarified district courts may consider a mandatory § 924(c) sentence when sentencing on the underlying offense)
- United States v. Patterson, 853 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2017) (requires actual examples rather than hypotheticals to rebut categorical analysis)
- United States v. Moody, 206 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2000) (explains stare decisis effect of prior panel decisions within the Sixth Circuit)
- United States v. Franklin, 622 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2010) (prior rule that district courts should not consider mandatory § 924(c) term when sentencing on underlying offense; subsequently abrogated by Dean)