United States v. Marvin Lewis
907 F.3d 891
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Lewis participated in a series of jewelry-store robberies (Austin, Houston) and one in Ohio; indicted on 27 counts including Hobbs Act conspiracy (count 1), multiple § 924(c) firearm counts (counts 23–26), and other robbery/money-laundering counts.
- Jury convicted Lewis on 25 of 27 counts; one § 924(c) count (count 24) was dismissed by the government earlier.
- District court imposed concurrent terms on the non-§ 924(c) counts, and consecutive mandatory minimums on the § 924(c) counts: 84 months (count 23), 300 months (count 25), and 300 months (count 26), all consecutive to the other counts.
- Lewis argued on appeal that (1) the Hobbs Act conspiracy (count 1) is not a "crime of violence" (COV) and thus cannot serve as a § 924(c) predicate for count 23; (2) the four-level § 3B1.1(a) role-enhancement was erroneous; and (3) the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
- At oral argument the government conceded that under United States v. Davis the Hobbs Act conspiracy cannot qualify as a COV for § 924(c), prompting review and relief.
Issues
| Issue | Lewis's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (count 1) is a "crime of violence" and thus a valid predicate for § 924(c) brandishing charge (count 23) | Conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not necessarily require the use/threat of force and so is not a COV under § 924(c)(3) | Conceded Davis is controlling and that Hobbs Act conspiracy cannot serve as the § 924(c) predicate for count 23 | Vacated conviction and sentence on count 23; because that conviction triggered increased penalties for later § 924(c) counts, the court vacated the entire sentence and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether the § 3B1.1(a) four-level role enhancement was improperly applied at sentencing | Lewis contested the enhancement (claimed error) | Government defended the enhancement; district court applied it | Court declined to disturb the district court’s initial application; left issue for district court on remand if relevant |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable | Lewis argued sentencing errors and unreasonableness | Government argued sentencing decisions were within district court discretion | Court found no reason to disturb procedural/substantive reasonableness of non-§924(c) counts; vacated sentence only because of § 924(c) predicate error and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2018) (conspiracy is not a COV under § 924(c); residual clause was unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Aguirre, 926 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1991) (vacatur of entire sentence and remand required when one conviction affects other mandatory sentences)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standards for plain-error review)
- United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267 (5th Cir.) (court decides as a matter of law whether an offense is a COV)