United States v. Sinisa Muratovic
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12941
7th Cir.2013Background
- Muratovic pled guilty to attempted Hobbs Act robbery, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence.
- At change-of-plea, he admitted planning a truck robbery to steal drug money traveling from Illinois to California and conducted months of surveillance.
- The plan contemplated following the truck to a rest stop, disguises, armed confrontation, and stealing the money.
- An informant wore a wire to participate in the scheme, and the group prepared weapons and robbery supplies.
- Muratovic left the surveillance site without executing the robbery, but later details were provided in the Government’s Version and his PSR.
- The district court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced Muratovic to 90 months; he appeals on Hobbs Act jurisdiction, substantial-step, and § 924(c) theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record provides a factual basis for Hobbs Act jurisdiction | Muratovic | Muratovic | Record provides factual basis for jurisdiction |
| Whether there is a substantial-step basis for the attempted Hobbs Act robbery | Muratovic | Muratovic | Substantial step supported by the record |
| Whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c) | Muratovic | Muratovic | Court does not decide, as indictment tied both theories to § 924(c) and it does not affect ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. United States, 227 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2000) (asset depletion theory for Hobbs Act jurisdiction)
- Shields v. United States, 999 F.2d 1090 (7th Cir. 1993) (interstate commerce nexus for Hobbs Act)
- Rindone v. United States, 631 F.2d 491 (7th Cir. 1980) (per curiam; asset depletion context)
- Watson v. United States, 525 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2008) (rejects cash as standalone jurisdictional hook; supports asset depletion theory)
- Villegas v. United States, 655 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2011) (substantial-step standard; detailed plan supports)
- Barnes v. United States, 230 F.3d 311 (7th Cir. 2000) (substantial-step analysis; preparation vs. step)
- Sanchez v. United States, 615 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2010) (factors for substantial-step; proximity to completion)
- Gladish v. United States, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008) (line between preparation and substantial step)
- Cote v. United States, 504 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2007) (note on factual bases for plea)
- Cotts v. United States, 14 F.3d 300 (7th Cir. 1994) (context for plea and attempted crimes)
- Elders v. United States, 569 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 1978) (interplay of commerce and criminal activity)