United States v. Thomas Hammond, 912 F.3d 658

Defendant Thomas Hammond pleaded guilty to federal bank robbery and attempted bank robbery; at sentencing the probation officer classified him as a career offender based on prior convictions including New York Penal Law § 160.15 (first-degree robbery).
Career-offender classification under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 raises Hammond’s Guidelines range from ~84–105 months to 151–188 months; district court imposed 168 months.
Hammond challenged the career-offender enhancement, arguing New York first-degree robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines’ force clause (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1)).
The Fourth Circuit reviews de novo whether the state offense "necessarily" involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of violent physical force as defined in Johnson v. United States.
The court analyzed New York robbery statutes’ common core element of "forcible stealing," New York case law distinguishing snatching/pickpocketing from forcible takings, and whether subsections allowing an aggravating factor (e.g., being armed) eliminate the force element.
Court held New York first-degree robbery necessarily includes the use or threatened use of violent physical force and therefore qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines’ force clause; affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NY first-degree robbery under N.Y. Penal Law § 160.15 is a "crime of violence" under the Guidelines’ force clause	Hammond: NY robbery can be satisfied by de minimis contact or mere possession/display of a weapon; thus it need not involve violent physical force as defined in Johnson	Government: All NY robbery degrees share the element of "forcible stealing," which New York law construes to require violent force or threatened violent force; aggravating factors do not negate the force element	Court: Held § 160.15 necessarily requires the use or threatened use of violent physical force and therefore qualifies under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1); career-offender designation affirmed
Whether the modified categorical approach is required for § 160.15	Hammond: The court should consult charging documents because subsections include different aggravating factors	Government: Not required if every subsection of the statute is a crime of violence	Court: Not required once all subsections are held to be crimes of violence

Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defines "physical force" as violent force capable of causing physical pain or injury)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits when the modified categorical approach applies)
United States v. Gardner, 823 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 2016) (describes categorical approach for state offenses under career-offender analysis)
United States v. Pereira-Gomez, 903 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2018) (holds NY robbery includes violent force for related Guidelines/immigration analysis)
Perez v. United States, 885 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 2018) (reasoning that NY robbery requires violent force)
United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2017) (contrast on when a robbery statute may lack the force required by Johnson)