United States v. Robles
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4253
2d Cir.2013Background
- Robles convicted of conspiring to commit and committing three armed Hobbs Act robberies (2005–2006) and two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence.
- Counts: one conspiracy (§1951), three Hobbs Act robberies (Counts Two–Four), two §924(c) firearm counts (Counts Five and Six).
- District court sentenced to 35 years: 3 years each for robbery counts (concurrent) and mandatory consecutive 7-year and 25-year terms for Counts Five and Six respectively, with further nonconcurrency ban under §924(c)(1)(D)(ii).
- Judge concluded that the “except” clause in §924(c)(1) required consecutive minimums for each §924(c) conviction, even when in a single judgment.
- Robles appealed contending the “except” clause exempts him from stacking consecutive §924(c) minimums where multiple §924(c) counts exist in one proceeding.
- Court affirms the district court’s interpretation and holdings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §924(c)(1) exception clause permits non-consecutive sentencing for multiple §924(c) convictions in one judgment. | Robles: exception clause exempts from stacking due to higher minimum on one count. | Government: Deal governs multiple §924(c) counts; exception does not bar consecutive minimums. | Exception does not exempt; consecutive minimums apply for each §924(c) conviction. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the multiple §924(c) consecutive minimums under Abbott and Deal. | Robles: Abbott undermines Deal’s stacking rule in multi-count case. | Government: Abbott upholds that multiple §924(c) counts impose consecutive minimums. | Robles properly sentenced to 7-year and 25-year consecutive minimums. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count Five firearm conviction. | Robles challenges as to whether as weapon constituted a firearm. | Government: testimony supports firearm characterization. | Evidence sufficient; jury credibility defections defer to jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 1993) (holdings on consecutive §924(c) penalties in single proceeding)
- Abbott v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 18 (Supreme Court 2010) (exception clause does not stack §924(c) penalties across counts)
- United States v. Tejada, 631 F.3d 614 (2d Cir. 2011) (addressed interpretation of §924(c) exception clause)
- United States v. Cain, 671 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2012) (implicit endorsement of Deal after 1998 amendment)
- Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (Supreme Court 2012) (post-Deal/Abbott analysis in sentencing)
- DePierre v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2225 (Supreme Court 2011) (post-Deal/Abbott context for §924(c))