United States v. Michael Jay
705 F. App'x 587
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Michael Jay pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), a § 924(c) firearms charge, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Jay filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence on two main grounds: (1) that Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under § 924(c), and (2) his Career Offender designation under the Guidelines is invalid because the residual clause is void for vagueness.
- The district court denied Jay’s § 2255 motion; Jay appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Jay asked the court to overrule Ninth Circuit precedent holding Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence.
- He also argued Moncrieffe v. Holder changed the analysis and that the Career Offender residual clause rendered his sentence invalid.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, finding Selfa controls on Hobbs Act robbery and Beckles forecloses the vagueness challenge to the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c) | Jay: Hobbs Act robbery should not qualify; asks to overrule circuit precedent | Jay: Moncrieffe requires examining the least conduct criminalized, which he says excludes violent conduct | Court: Hobbs Act robbery qualifies; bound by Selfa; Moncrieffe does not change result |
| Whether Moncrieffe v. Holder requires a different categorical analysis | Jay: Moncrieffe directs focus on the least conduct and undermines Selfa | Jay: Moncrieffe means look to statutory least-offense conduct, not actual conduct | Court: Moncrieffe only requires considering least conduct; Selfa already applies that approach and holds Hobbs Act robbery requires force/intimidation |
| Whether the Career Offender residual clause is void for vagueness under the Guidelines | Jay: Residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, so his Career Offender status is invalid | Jay: Beckles and subsequent authority should allow his vagueness claim | Court: Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge to the Sentencing Guidelines; his prior convictions qualify as crimes of violence |
| Whether prior First Degree Assault convictions qualify Jay as a Career Offender | Jay: Contests classification based on prior convictions | Jay: Argues those convictions should not count as crimes of violence | Court: Prior first-degree assault convictions are crimes of violence; Career Offender designation proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Selfa, 918 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1990) (Hobbs Act robbery requires force or intimidation and qualifies as a crime of violence)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (categorical analysis requires considering the least conduct criminalized by the statute)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines' residual clause is not subject to vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (panel courts are bound by circuit precedent unless overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court)