907 F.3d 347
5th Cir.2018Background
- Nathaniel Bowens was convicted for a series of Hobbs Act robberies and related § 924(c) offenses involving use/possession/brandishing of a firearm during robberies of wireless-phone stores in Dallas–Fort Worth.
- At trial co-defendant Keon Blanks testified Bowens “had the gun” in one T‑Mobile robbery; surveillance photos showed Bowens and Blanks in the store, with an apparent firearm visible.
- Bowens was convicted on conspiracy (§ 1951), two substantive Hobbs Act robbery counts, and two § 924(c) counts (one alleging use/brandishing in furtherance of a crime of violence; one a subsequent § 924(c) with enhanced penalty).
- He received a total sentence of 400 months (including consecutive § 924(c) terms).
- On appeal Bowens raised: (1) insufficiency of evidence for count four (§ 924(c) based on aiding and abetting), (2) challenge to the § 924(c) sentence enhancement on count six if count four failed, and (3) a contention that Hobbs Act robbery is not a qualifying “crime of violence” under § 924(c)(3)(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under count four (§ 924(c)) on aiding-and-abetting theory | Bowens argued he could not aid-and-abet the firearm use because he was the only person who used/carried the gun (one cannot aid oneself) | Government argued it need only prove that "some person" used/brandished a gun during the Hobbs Act robbery and that Bowens associated with, and purposely participated in, the venture with advance knowledge of the gun | Affirmed: evidence (co‑defendant testimony, surveillance images, conduct) was sufficient for aiding-and-abetting § 924(c) conviction |
| Validity of § 924(c) subsequent-offense enhancement (count six) if count four fails | Bowens contended enhancement falls if predicate count four is unsupported | Government: enhancement stands because count four is supported | Affirmed: enhancement proper because count four upheld |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) elements clause | Bowens argued Hobbs Act robbery does not necessarily have an element of the use/threatened use of physical force to satisfy the elements clause | Government relied on Fifth Circuit precedent holding Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under the elements clause | Affirmed: Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A) as governed by binding circuit precedent |
| Standard of review for these challenges | (procedural) Bowens preserved sufficiency challenge; claimed legal error for COV characterization | Court noted de novo review for both preserved sufficiency and statutory interpretation issues | Affirmed: applied de novo review and found no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) (§ 2 makes aiders and abettors principals for federal offenses)
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (aider/abettor liability under § 924(c) requires advance knowledge of a confederate's use of a gun)
- United States v. Buck, 847 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (striking as unconstitutionally vague a residual-clause provision materially identical to § 924(c)(3)(B))
- United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2018) (holding § 924(c)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague in light of Dimaya)