United States v. O'Connor
874 F.3d 1147
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Darnell O’Connor pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- The PSR treated a prior Hobbs Act robbery conviction (18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1)) as a "crime of violence," raising his base offense level from 14 to 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A); district court adopted that view and sentenced him to 32 months.
- The Hobbs Act robbery statute criminalizes taking property "by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, . . . to his person or property." 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1).
- The Guidelines define "crime of violence" by an elements-based force clause (use/threat of physical force against the person) and an enumerated-offense clause (including "robbery" and, after Amendment 798, a narrowed definition of "extortion").
- On appeal, O’Connor argued the Hobbs Act robbery conviction is not categorically a "crime of violence" because the statute reaches threats to property (not just to persons); the Government argued it categorically qualifies (primarily as robbery).
- The Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded, holding Hobbs Act robbery is not categorically a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (O'Connor) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines' enumerated-offense clause (robbery/extortion) | Hobbs Act reaches threats to property; generic robbery and the Guidelines' extortion (Amendment 798) require threats/force against a person, so Hobbs Act is broader and does not categorically qualify | Hobbs Act robbery necessarily involves overcoming a person’s will and thus always involves threats to a person; it matches generic robbery (and need not worry about extortion) | Hobbs Act robbery can be committed by threats to property and therefore is broader than generic robbery; Amendment 798's extortion definition is ambiguous but resolved by lenity to exclude property-only threats, so Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify under the enumerated clause. |
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines' force clause (use/threat of physical force against the person) | Because Hobbs Act criminalizes threats to property, its elements do not necessarily include threatened physical force against a person, so it fails the force-clause test | Hobbs Act robbery should qualify under the force clause (and analogous statutory provisions have been held to cover Hobbs Act robbery) | The Guidelines’ force clause requires force against the person; because Hobbs Act reaches threats to property, it does not categorically meet the force clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thomas, 643 F.3d 802 (10th Cir.) (standard of review: de novo on whether prior conviction is a Guidelines "crime of violence")
- United States v. Titties, 852 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2017) (categorical-approach application to Guidelines predicates)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (formal categorical approach: compare statute elements to generic definition)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (if statute sweeps more broadly than predicate definition, convictions under it cannot categorically count)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (divisible statutes and limits on considering statutory alternatives)
- United States v. Castillo, 811 F.3d 342 (10th Cir. 2015) (California robbery analysis informing generic robbery/extortion comparisons)