United States v. Rivera
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2030
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- In Dec 2014 and Jan 2015 Rivera and accomplices committed multiple armed robberies in Milwaukee, including Brew City Tap and Sky Zone, taking cash and using firearms or BB guns. Cooperating witnesses tied Rivera to ~30 robberies.
- The government charged Rivera with five Hobbs Act robbery counts (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and five § 924(c) counts for brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence; Rivera pled guilty to two § 924(c) counts and other counts were dismissed.
- Judge Stadtmueller accepted the plea on Nov 12, 2015 and sentenced Rivera on Feb 4, 2016 to the mandatory minimum aggregate term of 32 years imprisonment (based on stacked § 924(c) terms) and imposed a five-year term of supervised release.
- Rivera appealed, raising two issues: (1) whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under the § 924(c) force clause (Rivera relied on Mathis), and (2) whether the judge procedurally erred by stating he was "obliged" to impose a five-year supervised-release term (suggesting the judge thought the term mandatory).
- The Seventh Circuit had recently held that Hobbs Act robbery requires use or threat of physical force and thus qualifies as a crime of violence; the court here addressed Rivera’s Mathis-based challenge and the supervised-release ambiguity.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c) (force clause) | Mathis shows "force" is a mere "means," so Hobbs Act lacks an element of physical force and cannot qualify | Hobbs Act robbery necessarily involves use or threatened physical force; each statutory means requires force, so element exists | Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c); Rivera's Mathis argument rejected |
| Whether sentencing judge procedurally erred by saying he was "obliged" to impose 5 years supervised release | Statement indicates judge thought 5-year term mandatory, requiring resentencing | Record shows judge knew 5 years was the statutory maximum and used "obliged" in a moral (not legal) sense; no procedural error | No procedural error; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes elements from means and explains when categorical/modified-categorical approaches apply)
- United States v. Dorsey, 829 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for procedural sentencing error)
- United States v. Lyons, 733 F.3d 777 (7th Cir. 2013) (vacated sentence where judge clearly thought supervised release term was mandatory)
- United States v. Dill, 799 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2015) (explains ambiguity of judge saying he was "obliged" and upholds when used in moral sense)
For these reasons the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.