United States v. Rabb
942 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2019Background:
- DeJuan Rabb pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal drug offenses; the PSR treated him as a "career offender" under U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 based on prior convictions including a 2000 New York second-degree robbery (N.Y. Penal Law §160.10(1)).
- The PSR found Rabb had three qualifying felonies (drug and robbery) and, applying the career-offender enhancement, calculated a Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
- At sentencing Rabb argued the 2000 NY robbery did not qualify as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines' enumerated-offenses clause because New York robbery could encompass sudden purse-snatchings requiring only de minimis force (relying on United States v. Steed).
- The District Court disagreed, treating Rabb's NY robbery as corresponding to "generic robbery," adopted the PSR calculations, but varied downward and imposed concurrent 140-month sentences.
- On appeal the First Circuit applied the categorical and (as applicable) modified categorical approaches, examined New York law as of 2000 (focusing on N.Y. Penal Law §160.00), and concluded generic "robbery" (as used in the Guidelines) does not encompass the de minimis-force purse-snatching covered by §160.00 in 2000.
- The Court vacated Rabb's sentence and remanded for resentencing without the career-offender enhancement.
Issues:
| Issue | Rabb's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 2000 NY second-degree robbery conviction (N.Y. Penal Law §160.00/§160.10(1)) qualifies as "robbery" in the Guidelines' enumerated "crime of violence" clause | Rabb: NY robbery can include sudden purse-snatching with only de minimis force, so it is broader than "generic robbery" and thus not a qualifying predicate | Government: "Robbery" in the enumerated clause encompasses NY robbery; enumerated listing should cover robbery even if some state definitions are broad (argued at oral argument that enumerated term must add something) | The Court held NY robbery as defined in 2000 could encompass sudden purse-snatching requiring only awareness-level force and therefore did not match "generic robbery" for the Guidelines; career-offender designation reversed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Steed, 879 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2018) (held NY robbery could include sudden purse-snatching with de minimis force)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (established the categorical approach for predicate-offense analysis)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (adopted the "realistic probability" standard when comparing state offense scope to generic offense)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explained divisibility and the modified categorical approach)
- Stokeling v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) (interpreted robbery as requiring force sufficient to overcome resistance at common law)
- United States v. Fluker, 891 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2018) (held Georgia robbery statute included sudden snatching and thus was broader than generic robbery)