United States v. Maurice Davis
677 F. App'x 933
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- June 2014: Series of robberies of Murphy Oil stores in the Dallas area; defendants Andre Levon Glover (convicted) and Maurice Lamont Davis (sentenced) involved; multiple counts included Hobbs Act robberies and § 924(c) firearms charges.
- Cigarettes were the principal stolen commodity; cigarettes were manufactured out-of-state though some inventory/replacement came from local distribution.
- Glover was arrested after the June 22 robbery; government relied on similarities in vehicles, clothing, weapons, stolen items, and modus operandi to link him to robberies on June 16 and 21.
- Sentencing dispute included a four-level U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) abduction enhancement based on clerks being forced from kiosk areas into storage rooms during some robberies.
- Davis challenged ACCA enhancements tied to prior Texas burglary convictions; both defendants challenged § 924(c) convictions post-Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of interstate-commerce nexus for Hobbs Act convictions | Gov: cigarettes are a highly regulated commodity that traveled in interstate commerce; robberies required replacement stock from out-of-state sources | Glover: robberies occurred intrastate; inventory and replacements came from local distribution; effect on interstate commerce too attenuated | Affirmed — evidence sufficient; modest, non-attenuated effect on interstate commerce shown (manufactured/shipped from other states; company multi-state operations) |
| Sufficiency linking Glover to June 16 and 21 robberies | Gov: similarities in vehicle, clothing, weapons, stolen items, and modus operandi support same-perpetrator inference | Glover: evidence insufficient to connect him to June 16 and 21 | Affirmed — a rational juror could find Glover committed all robberies beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Validity of § 924(c) “crime of violence” definition post-Johnson | Defendants: Johnson's vagueness holding on residual clause renders § 924(c)(3)(B) invalid | Gov: § 924(c)(3)(B) mirrors § 16(b) language and is distinguishable from Johnson’s residual clause; courts should uphold it | Affirmed — § 924(c)(3)(B) not unconstitutionally vague; Johnson does not invalidate it |
| Abduction sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) | Glover: movement of clerks within store/kiosk areas not a forced accompaniment to a “different location” | Gov: forced movement from kiosk/outside area into storage room constitutes abduction under guideline and Fifth Circuit precedent | Affirmed — movements into storage rooms were plausible “different location” abductions; enhancement properly applied |
| ACCA enhancement based on prior Texas burglary convictions | Davis: Texas burglary statutes are indivisible under Mathis and do not necessarily qualify as violent crimes for ACCA | Gov: challenge foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent | Affirmed — claim foreclosed by circuit precedent (Uribe) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lewis, 774 F.3d 837 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Villafranca, 260 F.3d 374 (5th Cir.) (interstate-commerce requirement for Hobbs Act)
- United States v. Robinson, 119 F.3d 1205 (5th Cir.) (rejecting a substantial-effect requirement beyond Commerce Clause tests)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. en banc) (holding § 16(b) language not unconstitutionally vague post-Johnson)
- United States v. Prickett, 839 F.3d 697 (8th Cir.) (holding § 924(c)(3)(B) not invalidated by Johnson)
- United States v. Hill, 832 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.) (same conclusion re: § 924(c)(3)(B))
- United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir.) (same conclusion re: § 924(c)(3)(B))
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (rule on statute divisibility relevant to categorical approach)
- United States v. Uribe, 838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir.) (foreclosing Davis’s Mathis-based ACCA challenge)
- United States v. Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722 (5th Cir.) (abduction defined flexibly; short movement can constitute abduction)
- United States v. Castro-Alfonso, 841 F.3d 292 (5th Cir.) (harmless-error review for sentencing errors)