United States v. Robert Fox, 878 F.3d 574

Robert Fox was indicted for two Hobbs Act robberies and related 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) firearm counts; he proceeded to trial with court-appointed counsel and was convicted.
Trial was set for February 16, 2016; Fox intermittently requested new counsel in the months before trial but repeatedly changed his position about proceeding.
At the final pretrial conference Fox said his family was speaking with potential private counsel but later declined the 30-day delay after a superseding indictment.
On the morning of trial Fox again sought a continuance so his family could retain private counsel; the family’s testimony was speculative, no new counsel appeared, and appointed counsel and the court were prepared to proceed.
The district court denied the last-minute continuance; the jury convicted Fox of the robberies and § 924(c) counts; he received a 435-month sentence (including mandatory consecutive § 924(c) add-ons).
On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under Dean v. United States, allowing district courts to consider the § 924(c) add-on when sentencing predicate offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of morning-of-trial continuance violated right to counsel of choice	Fox: denial deprived him of chosen counsel; structural error requires new trial	Government: request was eleventh-hour, speculative, no new counsel appeared, and denial was within discretion	Denial affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; facts more like Sinclair than Sellers
Whether indictment needed to allege § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) recidivism add-on	Fox: indictment insufficient for mandatory 25-year recidivist add-on	Government: recidivism is a sentencing factor per Almendarez-Torres, not an element	Rejected Fox’s claim; binding precedent allows omission from indictment; issue preserved for Supreme Court review
Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A)	Fox: Hobbs Act robbery not a crime of violence	Government: Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as crime of violence	Court held Hobbs Act robberies are crimes of violence and affirmed conviction on that ground
Whether sentence must be vacated in light of Dean	Fox: resentencing needed because Dean permits consideration of § 924(c) add-on when sentencing predicates	Government: concedes resentencing required	Court vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing under Dean

United States v. Sellers, 645 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2011) (denial of continuance when substitute counsel present and new counsel available was reversible)
United States v. Sinclair, 770 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of eleventh-hour continuance where plan to hire counsel was speculative)
United States v. Cardena, 842 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2016) (recidivism under § 924(c) not an element requiring indictment)
United States v. Anglin, 846 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2017) (Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A))
United States v. Gooch, 850 F.3d 285 (6th Cir. 2017) (agreeing Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence)
United States v. Hill, 832 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2016) (Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence)
In re St. Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2016) (Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence)
United States v. Roberson, 474 F.3d 432 (7th Cir. 2007) (prior Seventh Circuit rule requiring separate sentencing of predicate offenses apart from § 924(c) add-on)