United States v. Murphy, 6:01-cr-06087

Movant Terrance Stinson was convicted on August 26, 2003, of multiple federal offenses, including Count 5: a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for carrying a firearm in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery.
Other convictions included drug-conspiracy and related firearm offenses (Counts 1, 2, and 4).
After the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis (2019) invalidated the § 924(c) residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, Stinson filed a supplemental § 2255 motion arguing Count 5 must be vacated because Hobbs Act conspiracy is not a qualifying "crime of violence."
The government conceded that, in light of Davis and its own representations, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a § 924(c) predicate under the force clause.
The court agreed that Stinson's § 924(c) conviction (Count 5) violated due process post-Davis, granted the supplemental § 2255 motion, vacated the conviction on Count 5, and remanded for resentencing before the original sentencing judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" for § 924(c)	Stinson: Davis invalidates the residual clause and Hobbs Act conspiracy lacks the force-element required by the force clause	Government: Agrees Hobbs Act conspiracy does not satisfy § 924(c)(3)(A) post-Davis	Court: Agreed with parties; conviction on Count 5 must be vacated
Appropriate remedy following invalidation of predicate	Stinson: Vacatur of § 924(c) conviction and expedited resentencing	Government: Joins request for resentencing	Court: Granted § 2255 relief; vacated Count 5; remanded for resentencing before original judge

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause, foundational to vagueness challenges)
United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (held § 924(c) residual clause unconstitutionally vague; narrowed qualifying "crime of violence")