United States v. Quartavious Davis, 711 F. App'x 605

Background

Quartavius Davis was convicted on 16 counts: Hobbs Act conspiracies and robberies (Counts 1,2,4,6,8,10,13,15,16) and multiple § 924(c) firearms offenses (Counts 3,5,7,9,11,14,17), each § 924(c) charge premised on a preceding Hobbs Act robbery.
At trial Davis stipulated that each Hobbs Act robbery affected interstate commerce; the jury convicted on all counts and the district court imposed a cumulative sentence exceeding 1,900 months.
On direct appeal this Court (en banc) affirmed convictions but vacated the brandishing enhancement on Count 3, directing resentencing to a 60-month mandatory minimum on that count; the mandate issued May 21, 2015.
After remand Davis filed Rule 12(b) motions: (1) to vacate the Hobbs Act conspiracy and robbery convictions for failure to allege/prove the interstate-commerce element; (2) to dismiss all § 924(c) counts arguing § 924(c)(3)(B) was void for vagueness under Johnson.
The district court denied both motions as beyond the mandate’s scope (and on the merits), reduced Count 3 to 60 months per the mandate, and reimposed remaining sentences; Davis appealed only the denial of the Rule 12(b) motions.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the Hobbs Act counts adequately alleged and proved the minimal interstate-commerce effect and rejecting the vagueness challenge to § 924(c)(3)(B) (and noting Hobbs Act robbery also qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A)).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hobbs Act robbery/conspiracy counts adequately alleged/proved interstate-commerce element	Davis: Indictment language and trial proof were insufficient; his stipulation was legally inadequate	Government: Indictment tracked § 1951 language; Davis’s stipulation plus evidence of robberies of commercial establishments sufficed	Held: Counts sufficiently alleged; stipulation and trial evidence established minimal interstate-commerce effect; motion denied
Whether § 924(c)(3)(B) risk-of-force clause is void for vagueness under Johnson	Davis: Johnson invalidates similar residual language, so § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague and § 924(c) counts fail	Government: Johnson addressed ACCA residual clause, not § 924(c)(3)(B); Ovalles controls that Johnson does not apply	Held: Held that Johnson does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B); motion to dismiss § 924(c) counts denied
Whether Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) (elements/use-of-force clause)	Davis: Alternatively, Hobbs Act robbery does not categorically qualify under the elements clause	Government: Hobbs Act robbery necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against a person	Held: Hobbs Act robbery qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A); even if § 924(c)(3)(B) were invalid, § 924(c) convictions stand
Whether district court was barred by the mandate rule from considering Davis’s Rule 12(b) motions	Davis: Motions raised jurisdictional defects and thus were not barred by the mandate	Government: Motions were non-jurisdictional and beyond the mandate	Held: Court avoided resolving timeliness/mandate rule disputes because Davis’s claims fail on the merits regardless; denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (affirming convictions; vacating brandishing enhancement portion of sentence)
United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2000) (minimal interstate-commerce effect suffices for Hobbs Act)
United States v. Ovalles, 861 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017) (Johnson does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B))
In re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2016) (Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
United States v. Acuna-Rayna, 677 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2012) (appellate court may affirm on any supported ground)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual clause held void for vagueness)
Taylor v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2074 (2016) (narrow ruling on Hobbs Act commerce element for robberies of drug dealers)